D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[iserith]

As I think others have mentioned before, don't think of actions as skill checks.

Right. A task (or action) is not an ability check, nor an ability check a task. That is very important to get straight in my view. Also, there are no "skill checks" in D&D 5e. That term does not exist in this edition.

A task is a thing the character does in the game world. An ability check is just something the DM uses to determine the outcome of the task when said outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The DM decides this based on what the player has described the character doing and trying to accomplish, relative to the environment the DM has already described (or prepared).

 

[billd91]

The 5e skills as-is are very broad and encompass things that would be other skills.

For the most part, this is a good thing. Trying to invest across too many skills to be good at something a bit broader and more abstract was a pain. And it was really annoying if you invested heavily in something that never even came up in play. Rope Use - how may people got a lot of use out of that?
And then there was the stealth problem. Broken into 2 skills, each opposed by its own skill, the character trying to be stealthy effectively had to beat both opposed skills. That's just more chances to fail. Combining into stealth vs perception was the better choice. Most other games had already made that abstraction rather than having move silently and hide in shadows as separate things to do and were better off for it.

 

[Umbran]

What does the game gain by having an epic hero of the realms have to roll a dice for that...

Please watch your language.

 

[Istbor]

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a very different mindset of D&D.

So, for example, if it's someone's background, letting them add their proficiency bonus to related tasks/knowledge from their background (that aren't already covered by other skills/proficiencies)?

Maybe letting players learn a profession (equivalent ability to being able to doing the checks with their background) with the same time/training rules for learning a language or a proficiency in a set of tools?

Like with my soldiering example, if it wasn't their background, but if during the campaign if someone spends 250 days in a regular army, let them gain essentially "proficiency" with soldiering and be able to use their proficiency bonus on appropriate checks?

The change can certainly be daunting, especially if you liked the more measured bits of past editions. I thought I did at the time, and then I played 5e and felt like this huge weight was lifted off me.

My world was now my world, and I didn't have to worry about some preexisting rule that I may or may not agreed with. If I envisioned something to be different, BAM. Done.

Now, I personally love, LOVE, world-building. And when I saw a lack of professions as you suggest as a possible issue that meant I got to decide how things work to some extent.

For example, some of my players expressed a desire for professions. Something far more granular that the current rules would adequately support.

I designed my own herbalist/potion crafting system for one, and for a couple others a whole fishing enterprise, and how that would work, what the challenges could/would be.

Did it mean I had to get off my duff and learn way too much about either topic in an appropriate time frame? Sure. Developing and running those two new systems was sorta fun for me. And more so when the players enjoyed the work put into it. I can understand if someone doesn't find that same enjoyment, or has that kind of time (I honestly don't think I spent much time on it, aside from some Wikipedia/research rabbit holes I fell into).

I feel like 5e opened up the world for me to tinker in it. And not having rigid rules for a myriad of professions and skills was certainly a big part of that.

I mean, thank the gods I don't have to worry about both a hide and move silently check anymore.

 

[wingsandsword]

For the most part, this is a good thing. Trying to invest across too many skills to be good at something a bit broader and more abstract was a pain. And it was really annoying if you invested heavily in something that never even came up in play. Rope Use - how may people got a lot of use out of that?
And then there was the stealth problem. Broken into 2 skills, each opposed by its own skill, the character trying to be stealthy effectively had to beat both opposed skills. That's just more chances to fail. Combining into stealth vs perception was the better choice. Most other games had already made that abstraction rather than having move silently and hide in shadows as separate things to do and were better off for it.

I wasn't saying it's bad.

The more consolidated skills is one of the things I can actually like about 5e, especially the hide/move silently and knowledge: Arcana and Knowledge: The Planes consolidation.

I was just responding to the question that being a soldier (aside from combat and athletic skills) would be one skill or proficiency. Aside from athletics and combat training, the idea of consolidating the various bits of professional knowledge about the military life into one proficiency seemed to fit into the same level of consolidation of skills.

 

[prabe]

I wasn't saying it's bad.

The more consolidated skills is one of the things I can actually like about 5e, especially the hide/move silently and knowledge: Arcana and Knowledge: The Planes consolidation.

I was just responding to the question that being a soldier (aside from combat and athletic skills) would be one skill or proficiency. Aside from athletics and combat training, the idea of consolidating the various bits of professional knowledge about the military life into one proficiency seemed to fit into the same level of consolidation of skills.

Arguably, it does. It's part of the DM deciding how difficult something is. Heck, the PC with the Soldier background might not even need to roll for some things, while another PC with a different background would.

 

[Umbran]

I was just responding to the question that being a soldier (aside from combat and athletic skills) would be one skill or proficiency. Aside from athletics and combat training, the idea of consolidating the various bits of professional knowledge about the military life into one proficiency seemed to fit into the same level of consolidation of skills.

Yep. And that feeds nicely in using the Background as that proficiency.

 

[wingsandsword]

I dont know about you, but I just assume a PC with a background of Soldier or whatever knows how to be a Soldier, recognise ranks, pack stuff properly, march, salute, set watches, small unit tactics and so forth.

What does the game gain by having an epic hero of the realms have to roll a dice for that

When could that kind of knowledge be useful in a game?

Let's say Bob the Fighter is undercover in the evil Imperial Army, trying to get to their headquarters to steal important plans. He's wearing the armor and tabard of an Imperial Soldier, he's passing himself off as a troop because they looted some gear from fallen soldiers a while back. . .but does he know what rank he's pretending to be? Does he know how to properly address different soldiers or recognize who he may need to salute?

Or, the usually good Royal Army has set up a roadblock at the edge of the village at the bridge into town. They aren't letting anyone through, and that's keeping local craftsmen and farmers from taking their wares to market the next town over, and keeping travelling merchants away. It's hurting the town. . .but the soldiers have their orders. As it's not a tyrannical kingdom and the troops are generally LN or LG and doing as they're told, it wouldn't be a very Good-aligned choice to deal with the roadblock by force. . .so maybe knowing military bureaucracy and hierarchy enough to know who to go to in their military heirarchy to talk to about lifting the roadblock could be helpful. . .and maybe they're doing it for some reason the PC's could be helpful with (like doing it to be prepared for some dangerous monster they're afraid might try to storm into town soon, but the PC's could go fend it off and with proof of it being killed, the roadblock is lifted)

 

[jgsugden]

My rules: When you attempt to do something, ask whether your skills, tool proficiencies or background would indicate you have some skill in it. If so, make it a proficient roll.

A lot of these issues go away if you start to think practically.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yep. And that feeds nicely in using the Background as that proficiency.

Except, as I noted, there's no ability, in the RAW, to gain that knowledge after character creation, and there was no indication in the rules that I could see that you could even use a background as proficiency like that, that backgrounds are flavor text and some added skills and equipment, not a profession skill unto themselves.