D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[Parmandur]

I thought D&D had evolved beyond "just make up some stuff, roll some dice, and let it all be DM fiat" about 40 years ago.

I'm getting the impression that the people who actually like games with well defined rules were chased away from here when 5e came out.

I'm trying to give 5e a chance, but replies like yours do NOT make that easy.

It never did "evolve" "beyond" that: for that is D&D (including the most straight RAW 3.x), the rest is details.

5E is just streamlined and efficient.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Indeed, but there isn't a whole lot of overlap, and some things that we might view as one skill in general would actually be covered as two different skills in 5e.
For example, there are no "parkour" or "judo" skills in 5e: Different aspects of both activities are covered in both Athletics and Acrobatics.
The DM is going to listen to what the player wants their character to accomplish and decide whether it needs a roll, and if so, what roll is needed.

Likewise, there is no "Profession: Soldier" single skill. Knowledge of military uniforms, ranks, procedures, as well as strategy would likely be covered by History. Drill display might be Dexterity(Performance).

In the real world, learning the profession of being a Soldier takes a few months, same for being a police officer. You can learn a lot in a few months of downtime.

I would generally regard the initial military training to be where most people gain the ability to make a non-proficient ability check. Actually learning a full proficiency would take longer for NPC.

PCs are generally special and assumed to have a fairly eclectic level of capability in a lot of things. - That and 5e isn't designed to be very granular.

 

[TheSword]

I thought D&D had evolved beyond "just make up some stuff, roll some dice, and let it all be DM fiat" about 40 years ago.

I'm getting the impression that the people who actually like games with well defined rules were chased away from here when 5e came out.

I'm trying to give 5e a chance, but replies like yours do NOT make that easy.

I think you are missing the point that to a lot of people, D&D is a rules heavy game, certainly in comparison to board games. Those people haven’t played Pathfinder or 3e.

I also think you are massively over-complicating this. If you feel that strongly about professions then add it as a skill or if you’re not the DM ask if you can add profession (baker) as a skill. I would have it akin to a tool proficiency or language as it’s fairly minor and not likely to come up often.

It really is that simple.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I thought D&D had evolved beyond "just make up some stuff, roll some dice, and let it all be DM fiat" about 40 years ago.

I'm getting the impression that the people who actually like games with well defined rules were chased away from here when 5e came out.

I'm trying to give 5e a chance, but replies like yours do NOT make that easy.

You are going to like what you are going to like. If you like a crunchy system full of rules and tons of expansion books with more crunchy rules...then don't go down the 5e road....because not only is it fairly rules lite....the release schedule of new crunch is glacial.

That being said...here is my example of why I think the 5e system is "better" than 3e when it comes to skills.

3.Xe with a low INT barbarian: You get a grand total of ONE skill that your character is proficient at. 1. You can Climb...or you can Swim...but you can't do both because you are too dumb to figure it out. You can split your skill points up between a couple skills, but then you run the risk of never getting "good" at either. Because of the large amount of different skills, each time a new skill comes along that brushes up against a different skill (Climb vs. Rope Use in regards to rappelling) you run the risk of diluting the skill that you picked into not working anymore if it gets tucked into a different one.

5e with a low INT barbarian: You are going to start with a few skills regardless of your INT. Each skill is much more general than 3.Xe so this may be comparable to being "skilled" at 10-12 different skills from the 3.Xe era. If you try to do ANYTHING that the GM thinks a barbarian is likely to know and it doesn't match up with a skill that you have....you can expect that you can still add your proficiency bonus to that roll as well. Maybe you didn't take Nature or Animal Handling as a skill, but your barbarianness might fill in for those in certain situations.

In the 3.Xe example....skills limit your character in an artificial way because of the detailed skill system. In 5e the loosened skill system allows the player and the GM to both "put the rubber to the road" in terms of a character operating mechanically the way they picture without having to change the RAW to get it there.

I'm not saying that YOU should think 5e skills are better than 3.Xe, i'm just pointing out how for me it opens up the game to using skill checks much more often and doing so.

*******************
To illustrate why I like the 5e skill system more....how long does it take you to give the RAW answer to the following question?
In 3.Xe, which skill check would a PC make to sneak past a creature who operates by smell? What's the DC?
In 5e, which skill check and DC would a PC make to sneak past a creature who operates by smell? What's the DC?

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

As others have probably said (didn't read the whole thread), backgrounds ARE professions. So yeah you are overlooking the option big time.

Just look at the list of PHB backgrounds, all of them answer the question: "how do you make a living"?

Most of the PHB backgrounds answer the question by giving you a fairly regular job, for which you can assume there is either an employer or direct customers: artisan, entertainer, soldier, sage, acolyte... Other backgrounds are ways to make a living in a more general way e.g. criminal, charlatan, and finally some of them are about simply getting along and provide for yourself e.g. hermit, urchin, outlander.

Now, clearly 5e moved away from 3e approach of having a "one-size-fit-all" skill to cover everything related to a profession. Instead, each background gives you multiple skills/tools/language proficiencies to represent a set of things that practicing your profession makes you good at. That is certainly different, but the "one-size-fit-all" option is still there as a variant rule (see Background Proficiency in the DMG) and I think many DMs actually use that.

As for learning new professions during the campaign, downtime rules allow you to learn tools/language proficiencies and feats allow you also to learn skill proficiencies. Officially there is no option for learning a second background, but the Skilled feat is almost worth as much as a background, and if your DM is using the Background Proficiency, I don't see why they shouldn't allow you to call it a second background.

 

[BluejayJunior]

As others have probably said (didn't read the whole thread), backgrounds ARE professions. So yeah you are overlooking the option big time.

Just look at the list of PHB backgrounds, all of them answer the question: "how do you make a living"?

Most of the PHB backgrounds answer the question by giving you a fairly regular job, for which you can assume there is either an employer or direct customers: artisan, entertainer, soldier, sage, acolyte... Other backgrounds are ways to make a living in a more general way e.g. criminal, charlatan, and finally some of them are about simply getting along and provide for yourself e.g. hermit, urchin, outlander.

Now, clearly 5e moved away from 3e approach of having a "one-size-fit-all" skill to cover everything related to a profession. Instead, each background gives you multiple skills/tools/language proficiencies to represent a set of things that practicing your profession makes you good at. That is certainly different, but the "one-size-fit-all" option is still there as a variant rule (see Background Proficiency in the DMG) and I think many DMs actually use that.

As for learning new professions during the campaign, downtime rules allow you to learn tools/language proficiencies and feats allow you also to learn skill proficiencies. Officially there is no option for learning a second background, but the Skilled feat is almost worth as much as a background, and if your DM is using the Background Proficiency, I don't see why they shouldn't allow you to call it a second background.

To build off this, by RAW Backgrounds are also able to be freely edited to fit the character concept. So if a default Background doesn't quite fit, you can edit or create a new one to properly reflect the profession of the character.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Because that's not the whole story--and you know it, or you wouldn't be asking that question that way.

You can have a gate, so only people with proficiency in (because it's come up) Religion can even roll, or, you can have everyone roll INT and those with proficiency in Religion get to add that. You can change the DC for those with proficiency in Religion, relative to those without, or you can give those with the proficiency Advantage (and/or those without Disadvantage). You can go a little into weirdness, and name more than one proficiency that seem relevant (say, Religion and History) and if someone has more than one of those proficiencies, they get Advantage (something I'm personally fond of).

I'm confused about your use of the word "can". I understand one can use those approaches. However, I'm much interested in the lens of "should" and what the use of each approach models inside the game world.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

As others have probably said (didn't read the whole thread), backgrounds ARE professions. So yeah you are overlooking the option big time.

Just look at the list of PHB backgrounds, all of them answer the question: "how do you make a living"?

Most of the PHB backgrounds answer the question by giving you a fairly regular job, for which you can assume there is either an employer or direct customers: artisan, entertainer, soldier, sage, acolyte... Other backgrounds are ways to make a living in a more general way e.g. criminal, charlatan, and finally some of them are about simply getting along and provide for yourself e.g. hermit, urchin, outlanderf
Now, clearly 5e moved away from 3e approach of having a "one-size-fit-all" skill to cover everything related to a profession. Instead, each background gives you multiple skills/tools/language proficiencies to represent a set of things that practicing your profession makes you good at. That is certainly different, but the "one-size-fit-all" option is still there as a variant rule (see Background Proficiency in the DMG) and I think many DMs actually use that.

As for learning new professions during the campaign, downtime rules allow you to learn tools/language proficiencies and feats allow you also to learn skill proficiencies. Officially there is no option for learning a second background, but the Skilled feat is almost worth as much as a background, and if your DM is using the Background Proficiency, I don't see why they shouldn't allow you to call it a second background.

I think what the OP is having a hard time with is figuring out how to model the characters that exist in his/her imagination. How can he/she modal a character who is a master of drill and ceremony? He/she can take the soldier background and Perform skill, but that also makes his/her character an equally good actor, which the character is not.

The Players Handbook instructs the player to visualize a character before starting to build it using the in game tool. If my visualization cannot be modeled by the in game tools, finding them lacking is a natural consequence.

The PHB does a very poor job explain what type of characters can be modeled suitably and which cannot. The box labeled "fantasy character" obviously includes "master of drill and ceremony",but the same does not provide the tools to create it that same character.

In essence, I think the PHB poorly defines its narrative limits, and as a result, some players come away disappointed.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I think what the OP is having a hard time with is figuring out how to model the characters that exist in his/her imagination. How can he/she modal a character who is a master of drill and ceremony? He/she can take the soldier background and Perform skill, but that also makes his/her character an equally good actor, which the character is not.

The Players Handbook instructs the player to visualize a character before starting to build it using the in game tool. If my visualization cannot be modeled by the in game tools, finding them lacking is a natural consequence.

The PHB does a very poor job explain what type of characters can be modeled suitably and which cannot. The box labeled "fantasy character" obviously includes "master of drill and ceremony",but the same does not provide the tools to create it that same character.

In essence, I think the PHB poorly defines its narrative limits, and as a result, some players come away disappointed.

How does he model it? He writes down on his character sheet "master of drill and ceremony". The DM let's him roll any check to do with those things with proficiency bonus and/or advantage.

There you go.

The fiddly bits actively worked against character concepts just as often as they supported them. Remember if you wanted to build a multiclass character who had dabbled in every class? Or a character who had several different professions over his lifetime. Have fun with your broken character!

 

[Raduin711]

So, back to the lawyer example...

I am not sure that having a Profession (Lawyer) skill is really all that it's cracked up to be. There are lots of different aspects of that profession that might call for different ability scores. Doing research for a case might be an INT check. Pleading your case might be a CHA check. Interpreting the attitude of the jury might be WIS. In 3rd edition all professions were Wisdom, full stop.

And Profession needed DM adjudication to work in 3rd edition as well. So you're telling me that when you were camping out in the forest after fighting those Trolls and went from 2nd to 3rd level, that you somehow gained 3 ranks in Profession: Lawyer? Oh, so you were studying law out in the woods by the campfire, okay... you're a lawyer now, who knew?

Suppose your campaign goes in a rather unique direction and your character spends a year learning how to be a lawyer. Cool. Why do we need a Profession (Lawyer) skill to represent that? Why don't we just.. acknowledge that this is a true thing that happened, and give the character proficiency bonuses/advantage/whatever?