D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[Parmandur]

You are correct. That example fell out of my brain while I was typing that. I suspect (to address the modeling question) you're modeling that (in the Religion case I was using) it's something that's only going to come up if you actively study Religion, but it's not foundational to anything. Or, I suppose you could gate it behind membership or experience--the reference is in the Library of the School of the World, and you've spent some time there, so you get to roll.

Precisely, with the goal of giving the Paladin a chance to shine outside of combat in ways the Wizard or Rogue can't. For me, knowing the parties Skills is important to identify places to give each character a place to shine. And roll dice.

 

[prabe]

For me, knowing the parties Skills is important to identify places to give each character a place to shine. And roll dice.

I'm running one 6-character party, and one 5-character party. I don't pretend to know exactly what every character is proficient in. I agree with the principle, though; in practice, I tend to make it so several things apply (and if someone has multiple, they get Advantage) which keeps things from getting blocked by one player's bad dice luck.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm running one 6-character party, and one 5-character party. I don't pretend to know exactly what every character is proficient in. I agree with the principle, though; in practice, I tend to make it so several things apply (and if someone has multiple, they get Advantage) which keeps things from getting blocked by one player's bad dice luck.

For sure, not for absolute blockers, but for cool moments it's a neat tool.

The big issue is that the Skill system is not a Simulationist approach like 3.x, where anybody can try anything: it's more nuanced than that, and a trained PC can be more than 10% better than the next guy, he may be ∞% better...

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Forgive me if this has been said already. I skipped a bunch of posts.

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.

Soldiery is not a 'skill'. No profession is a single skill. It is a series of skills put together to give you an aptitude to perform the duties of your profession.

Take the soldier background and then:
Take proficiency in Athletics. Soldiers are in good shape and can march for miles and miles
Take proficiency in History. Soldiers know ranks, historical battles,
Take proficiency in a gaming set . Soldiers know strategy and strategy games are often key to learning said strategies
Take proficiency in perception. Soldiers need to do guard duty and be alert for danger

-having a background in soldier will give you proficiency in any other ability check that doesn't fit into a specific category or skill. Just like it did in 2e.

This is how I build all my characters. My character is a juggler! I will take Performance, acrobatics, slight of hand etc...put them together and you're a very skillful juggler/performer. Take the Entertainer Background to top it off.

Remember that 3e didn't have 'Backgrounds' so they had a profession 'skill' that allowed you to make money by rolling skill checks. Now making money from your profession is often covered under your Background special ability.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

When the game had 40+ different skills (3.0 edition), players were complaining they were too many and started asking for some skills to be merged (3.5 edition) then merged even more (5th edition), and even today some people go around saying to keep merging them or just give proficiency to all checks with some of the 6 abilities. There are even a few who say 6 abilities are too many and only want 2 for brawns & brains.

This is a false problem. You want a juggler that is not an actor? Well, juggle more and act less!

It is a players' failure to believe that the numbers on their character sheet define who they are more than their behaviour.

First, I wasn't talking about "being' a juggler. I'm talking about being a military drill and ceremony expert.

Second, there is a difference between being and doing.

I can be a military drill and ceremony expert and do military drill and ceremony expert. But I can also do acting just as well as military drill and ceremony. That doesn't mean my character is an actor. That's exactly my point. Being a military drill and ceremony expert automatically makes me good at doing acting. The result is a enormous tension between my sheet and the in-game fiction.

Can you image a gruff and bettered soldier, never having acted, auditioned for the part of Romeo and found he was equally competent as acting as he was at military drills? It would be a miracle.

My character isn't a miracle. He's a military drill and ceremony expert. Miracle isn't in the character concept.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

For sure, not for absolute blockers, but for cool moments it's a neat tool.

The big issue is that the Skill system is not a Simulationist approach like 3.x, where anybody can try anything: it's more nuanced than that, and a trained PC can be more than 10% better than the next guy, he may be ∞% better...

That doesn't seem nuanced to me. It sounds like trying to whittle a toothpick with a chainsaw.

 

[Parmandur]

Forgive me if this has been said already. I skipped a bunch of posts.



Soldiery is not a 'skill'. No profession is a single skill. It is a series of skills put together to give you an aptitude to perform the duties of your profession.

Take the soldier background and then:
Take proficiency in Athletics. Soldiers are in good shape and can march for miles and miles
Take proficiency in History. Soldiers know ranks, historical battles,
Take proficiency in a gaming set . Soldiers know strategy and strategy games are often key to learning said strategies
Take proficiency in perception. Soldiers need to do guard duty and be alert for danger

-having a background in soldier will give you proficiency in any other ability check that doesn't fit into a specific category or skill. Just like it did in 2e.

This is how I build all my characters. My character is a juggler! I will take Performance, acrobatics, slight of hand etc...put them together and you're a very skillful juggler/performer. Take the Entertainer Background to top it off.

Remember that 3e didn't have 'Backgrounds' so they had a profession 'skill' that allowed you to make money by rolling skill checks. Now making money from your profession is often covered under your Background special ability.

For my money, Background is a more effective tool for differentiating characters than oodles of fiddley Skills that fail to simulate anything...

 

[Parmandur]

First, I wasn't talking about "being' a juggler. I'm talking about being a military drill and ceremony expert.

Second, there is a difference between being and doing.

I can be a military drill and ceremony expert and do military drill and ceremony expert. But I can also do acting just as well as military drill and ceremony. That doesn't mean my character is an actor. That's exactly my point. Being a military drill and ceremony expert automatically makes me good at doing acting. The result is a enormous tension between my sheet and the in-game fiction.

Can you image a gruff and bettered soldier, never having acted, auditioned for the part of Romeo and found he was equally competent as acting as he was at military drills? It would be a miracle.

My character isn't a miracle. He's a military drill and ceremony expert. Miracle isn't in the character concept.

Soldier Background, make a Charisma Ability check with Proficiency, no Performance needed due to Background logic applying. Done.

 

[Parmandur]

That doesn't seem nuanced to me. It sounds like trying to whittle a toothpick with a chainsaw.

No, that's the one size fits all 3E approach. 5E gives you a chainsaw for giant trees, and knives for whittling, and the DM decides which tool to use as logic applies.

 

[prabe]

I think the big shift is that 5E explicitly seems to trust the DM more than 3.x ever did, and the approach to Proficiencies is an example of that.