D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[overgeeked]

I don't think any edition said how they got their training... why is this a thing? Why is it a mark against 5e when literally no core book ever gave rules for that? In fact the 5e rules give a stronger sense of background and motivation that previous iterations of the game with the background template, which offer suggestions, and the Ideals, Bonds and Flaws. Why does there need to be a mechanic for this? Do I need a mechanic to make up my training and other details? I don't think so.

I don't know why this is a thing to argue about. But the game has covered this in the past.

AD&D DMG, p12. "When a player character selects a class, this profession is assumed to be that which the character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities. Thus the particular individual is at 1st level of ability. However, some minor knowledge of certain mundane skills might belong to the player character — information and training from early years or incidentally picked up while the individual was in apprenticeship learning his or her primary professional skills of clericism, fighting, etc. If your particular campaign is aimed at a level of play where secondary skills can be taken into account, then use the table below to assign them to player characters, or even to henchmen if you so desire."

The same page provides a list of ages appropriate for starting characters based on age. For humans, clerics are 18 + 1d4 years old, fighters 15 + 1d4, magic-users 24 + 2d8, thief 18 + 1d4. That clearly suggests that it takes far longer to learn some of these trades than others.

The AD&D DMG, p86, also has rules for training, though of the leveling up variety. They're quite wild.

 

[teitan]

I don't know why this is a thing to argue about. But the game has covered this in the past.

AD&D DMG, p12. "When a player character selects a class, this profession is assumed to be that which the character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities. Thus the particular individual is at 1st level of ability. However, some minor knowledge of certain mundane skills might belong to the player character — information and training from early years or incidentally picked up while the individual was in apprenticeship learning his or her primary professional skills of clericism, fighting, etc. If your particular campaign is aimed at a level of play where secondary skills can be taken into account, then use the table below to assign them to player characters, or even to henchmen if you so desire."

The same page provides a list of ages appropriate for starting characters based on age. For humans, clerics are 18 + 1d4 years old, fighters 15 + 1d4, magic-users 24 + 2d8, thief 18 + 1d4. That clearly suggests that it takes far longer to learn some of these trades than others.

The AD&D DMG, p86, also has rules for training, though of the leveling up variety. They're quite wild.

Well yeah, I know, that was kind of my point. I was taken aback by it.

 

[teitan]

I think for some people, the death funnel is the training. They want to play out the training, so the characters have to start out sad.

I like DCC too ;-)

 

[tetrasodium]

I like DCC too ;-)

DCC is fun for what it is, but it's worth noting that its comically lethal funnels are different from older educations where the starting levels were still quite dangerous & required being careful in ways that 5e does not.

If feels like some folks are trying to hold it up as the immediate next step from 5e's hero to superhero

 

[Minigiant]

A prediction I have for 5.5e or 6e with the history of 3.5 NPC classes and 5e Sidekick classes and the overall changes in the mindset of D&D is the formal introduction of non-adventurer classes of multiple tiers.

Classes you can either give NPC henchmen followers, use to boost monsters, or to extend low level play.

Like there could be an official Commoner class, Smith class, and Aristocrat class. Then you trade Commoner levels for Warrior/Expert/Priest/Mage/Magewright levels at 2 to 1. Then you can trade Warrior levels for Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Monk levels 2 to 1.

This would like you play "low level" for 12-20 levels.

 

[overgeeked]

Dungeon Crawl Classics 0-level funnels answer all these questions. How were you trained? What were you before? What’s your backstory? Why are you adventuring? Why is the group together? Etc.

They’re fantastic ways to kickstart gameplay and just get on with things. Instead of some boring, dry, and tedious Mary Sue piece of fiction foisted on the DM, the players actually play through their first meeting, their first adventure, their first combat. We did this together.

They’re also a lot more fun than reading generic tragic backstory #75 about how your totally not a Batman clone Rogue/Fighter/Bard/Warlock gained all their amazing powers…yet magically only has zero XP. Ugh. Gimme a dozen peasants storming a castle any day.

 

[teitan]

DCC is fun for what it is, but it's worth noting that its comically lethal funnels are different from older educations where the starting levels were still quite dangerous & required being careful in ways that 5e does not.

If feels like some folks are trying to hold it up as the immediate next step from 5e's hero to superhero

Low level DCC is still quite lethal and not comically so, it plays very much like 0e or 1e could be played. So many only think of it as a convention game, one shots here or there or just the funnel but it's a very good system for campaigning from level 0-10 and isn't quite so gonzo outside of the convention games. Heck, I can't get my players to gonzo out in the two one shots I have done let alone in a campaign!

 

[tetrasodium]

Low level DCC is still quite lethal and not comically so, it plays very much like 0e or 1e could be played. So many only think of it as a convention game, one shots here or there or just the funnel but it's a very good system for campaigning from level 0-10 and isn't quite so gonzo outside of the convention games. Heck, I can't get my players to gonzo out in the two one shots I have done let alone in a campaign!

I've played leveled characters in dcc & agree, I was talking about the funnels most people are only familiar with

 

[teitan]

I've played leveled characters in dcc & agree, I was talking about the funnels most people are only familiar with

Stinking fun but annoying funnels! I am excited for Dying Earth and DCC 100 though.

 

[clearstream]

We've no idea what RAI is here, or even whether the designers gave this any thought at all.

Training appears 25 times in the DMG and 40 times in the PHB. Fairly consistently, languages, tools, skills (including bard, ranger and rogue class talents), arts (including fighter and monk martial arts) and feats, are described as being a product of training. Whereas for example cleric magic is concretely not a product of training.

The designers laid out on PHB 187 (languages and tools) and DMG 131 (training after 1st level) the sort of timeframes they are thinking of. I've copied some snippets below for you to think about. My take is they thought about it, and deliberately chose to leave it undefined or open. They chose not to invest design time, playtesting and page count, into a detailed 0th-level funnel.

I sometimes think of game development like this. A company has $X to invest (pre-manufacturing and marketing). That translates to $Y design hours. Game designers have to decide where to invest those hours. Any $/hrs invested in solving a 0th-level funnel isn't available to invest in something else. Evidence in the text suggests that the designers considered training, they held a relatively consistent picture of what is a product of training and what isn't, and they offered a sense of the timespans they think it should take in-world.

Snippets to consider (on top of the rules for training)

One way to think about this question is to consider whether a character could become better at a particular task through training and practice. If the answer is no, it's fine to say that no proficiency applies. But if the answer is yes, assign an appropriate skill or tool proficiency to reflect that training and practice.

With this variant rule, characters don't have skill or tool proficiencies. Anything that would grant the character a skill or tool proficiency provides no benefit. Instead, a character can add his or her proficiency bonus to any ability check to which the character's prior training and experience (reflected in the character's background) reasonably applies.

During their downtime, characters can use the training rules in the Player's Handbook to acquire proficiency

Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on study or training.

clerics depend on their combat training to let them wade into melee

[Fighter] Where did you get your combat training,

Without the full training that a beginning character receives

[Feats] lt embodies training, experience, and abitities beyond what a class provides.