D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[prabe]

Admittedly, it's only implied in the section of the DMG about setting DCs. This is something where performance practice comes into play, looking at the Adventure books that WotC produces as examples. Trained-only Skill checks are a tool Perkins makes frequent use of in these campaigns.

In the DMG section about dealing with dice, I interpret the "middle path"--where sometimes you roll and sometimes you don't, and the DM decides which is which--as implying that any proficiency can be a basis for that decision. I mean, per the book anything can be the basis for that decision, and at least proficiency is something on the character sheets.

If you're doing that as DM, you should probably make it clear to the players, so they don't think their proficiencies aren't mattering.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think one of the hardest lessons a new DM has to learn is when not to roll dice. Not rolling is, IMO, far more often the correct or useful ruling than new DMs might think.

 

[SkidAce]

Oh please anyone with the real Soldier Profession know we break half the tools, lose ten percent of the others. and loan the others out to the next company over for their inspection.

It was like that when I got here.

 

[prabe]

I think one of the hardest lessons a new DM has to learn is when not to roll dice. Not rolling is, IMO, far more often the correct or useful ruling than new DMs might think.

Interesting results if they fail, interesting results if they succeed, chance of failure; or, I need an extent; or, I want to know who succeeds, for narrative reasons. Otherwise, I don't really want to roll.

 

[Fenris-77]

Interesting results if they fail, interesting results if they succeed, chance of failure; or, I need an extent; or, I want to know who succeeds, for narrative reasons. Otherwise, I don't really want to roll.

For sure, if there are no consequences for failure that matter, then there's no need to roll. I do think it takes some practice to think along different vectors in these cases. A lock might not be a tough one, but maybe its rusty. Then the challenge then is opening it quietly (assuming that matters). Adverbs are a useful tool there - doing something quickly, quietly, unobtrusively, or whatever - those are all places where I'd call for a roll. Sometimes an auto success has it's own unintended consequences, but that's a different story.

 

[TwoSix]

Don't knock it until you try it!

OBJECTION!

 

[dave2008]

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?

Things like this are primarily handled by backgrounds. The knight and the Soldier backgrounds come to mind. You can of course create a custom background.

To clarify @wingsandsword , if you need to do soldier things, a character or npc with the Soldier background (see the description in the PHB) can just do them. If the DM feels some soldier-like task needs a check, the DM should ask for an ability check and the player could add its proficiency bonus to that check. In addition, a character with the Soldier background can add its proficiency bonus to any ability check that the Athletics and Intimidate skills apply to.

The same basic principle is true for any other background (profession). It is a simplified way to cover a wide range of professional "skills."

EDIT: In addition, the assumption is that once your are an adventurer - that is your "profession." However, you can customize your character outside their profession with feats to pick features, skills, and proficiencies in other areas. Though I don't think there is a specific feat that allows a character to have the full profession of a background, I think it would be easy enough to work one up that give most if not all of the benefits of a background profession without making it OP for a feat.

 

[Remathilis]

If there isn't a rule for it to quantify it, it doesn't exist in the game world. Points, scores, ranks, levels etc. are the basic nuts and bolts under which the game is built. A vague "describe it to the DM and roll" isn't a rule, it's barely a game.

I don't usually badwrongfun, but this the worst possible take on an RPG ever. To take a juvenile example; there is no rules for needing bathroom breaks in D&D, therefore no creature in D&D ever urinates or defecates. They also can't get pregnant as there is no rule in D&D for fornication and conception. Yet somehow, children and chamber pots keep appearing in D&D modules.

(As an aside: Children & Chamber pots was the worst D&D knockoff ever)

 

[Hriston]

So, from what people are saying and what I'm reading, maybe the best way to handle more professions in 5e is to expand the list of tool proficiences and be a little more open minded and flexible about what constitutes a toolkit.

So, for my Soldier example, a "Soldier's Tools" which would be things like a uniform, rank insignia, standard or guidon, regulations. . .things a Soldier might be issued or carry other than weapons, armor and camping supplies, and that proficiency with those items would be the game system's way of saying someone would have the core skill-set of a soldier.

Or Farmer's tools of a hoe, shovel, plow, wheelbarrow, seed bag etc. being for a farmer.

Or Lawyer's tools being a collection of law books.

I think this misses what a tool is in 5E. A tool (in 5E) is an object that's necessary to perform certain tasks. I think you'd have to talk about what tasks a character is trying to do before it could be determined whether a tool is needed or if it's a task that could be accomplished without a tool.

IMO, the best way to handle character "professions" is to use the background system, and if you don't see one that fits, use the background customization rules that are part of that system.

 

[nomotog]

I don't usually badwrongfun, but this the worst possible take on an RPG ever. To take a juvenile example; there is no rules for needing bathroom breaks in D&D, therefore no creature in D&D ever urinates or defecates. They also can't get pregnant as there is no rule in D&D for fornication and conception. Yet somehow, children and chamber pots keep appearing in D&D modules.

(As an aside: Children & Chamber pots was the worst D&D knockoff ever)

Rules help define what matters in a game. If a game doesn't have a rule about chamber pots it's likely because they don't matter and most of the time they won't be included.

It's weird because when you pop away from D&D you can find a lot of rules for a lot of weird things in other RPGs because the RPGs value different things and put their rules into the different things they value.