D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

I'm not making a comparisons to 3E. I'm saying the transition from 10% better to infinitely better is like like trying to whittle a toothpick with a chainsaw. Or rather like trying to carve a statue with a chainsaw and a needle and nothing in between.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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

Can you show me the page number for that. I don't remember that in the rulebook.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not making a comparisons to 3E. I'm saying the transition from 10% better to infinitely better is like like trying to whittle a toothpick with a chainsaw.

No, they are two different tools that apply in different situations. Some things anybody can try, like jump over a chasm, bit the Athletics Trained character will be better. Other things need training to even attempt, like deciphering an ancient magic text. The Barbarian can't just say "I roll Arcana" if the DM doesn't think he has a chance to succeed. Pretty clearly laid out in the DMG...

 

[Parmandur]

Can you show me the page number for that. I don't remember that in the rulebook.

Drills never come up, so I just took 2 seconds to apply the Ability check rles in Chapter 7 of the PHB, 174-180, following on the suggest on how to use Backgrounds on p. 121ff.

DMG p. 236-242 are also helpful, and the options on p.263-264 are enlightening about the RAI. Practical examples from the published Adventures can be multiplied easily.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

No, they are two different tools that apply in different situations. Some things anybody can try, like jump over a chasm, bit the Athletics Trained character will be better. Other things need training to even attempt, like deciphering an ancient magic text. The Barbarian can't just say "I roll Arcana" if the DM doesn't think he has a chance to succeed. Pretty clearly laid out in the DMG...

Exactly. Which means its very easy to become an expert Arcana scholar compared to an expert athlete. As an Arcana scholar, I can be infinitely better than the untrained historian, but as an athlete, I can only be 10% better than an acrobat.

That doesn't strike you as odd?

 

[prabe]

Looks as though he's adding on the logic of Background Proficiency (DMG, p. 264) to the core skill/tool Proficiency system. At the least, it seems like a reasonable approach.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Drills never come up, so I just took 2 seconds to apply the Ability check rles in Chapter 7 of the PHB, 174-180, following on the suggest on how to use Backgrounds on p. 121ff.

DMG p. 236-242 are also helpful, and the options on p.263-264 are enlightening about the RAI. Practical examples from the published Adventures can be multiplied easily.

Drills never come up, so I just took 2 seconds to apply the Ability check rles in Chapter 7 of the PHB, 174-180, following on the suggest on how to use Backgrounds on p. 121ff.

DMG p. 236-242 are also helpful, and the options on p.263-264 are enlightening about the RAI. Practical examples from the published Adventures can be multiplied easily.

OK. I looked through those pages, I didn't see anything about allowing a character use his/her background to add his/her prof. bonus to a roll. Can you clarify. Maybe I missed it.

 

[Lem23]

Exactly. Which means its very easy to become an expert Arcana scholar compared to an expert athlete. As an Arcana scholar, I can be infinitely better than the untrained historian, but as an athlete, I can only be 10% better than an acrobat.

That doesn't strike you as odd?

Not really. If I were to try to jump across a gap, then I'd have a lesser chance than a professional athlete, but I could have a go.

If I tried to read Sumerian / Akkadian script, then I'd have no chance of doing so, whereas a scholar of Sumerian / Akkadian should be able to make a decent effort at doing so.

Why do you seem to think that's odd in any way?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Looks as though he's adding on the logic of Background Proficiency (DMG, p. 264) to the core skill/tool Proficiency system. At the least, it seems like a reasonable approach.

House rules are a way to cover up a game's shortcomings. Yes.

 

[prabe]

Exactly. Which means its very easy to become an expert Arcana scholar compared to an expert athlete. As an Arcana scholar, I can be infinitely better than the untrained historian, but as an athlete, I can only be 10% better than an acrobat.

That doesn't strike you as odd?

It would be odd, but the acrobat has training (and Proficiency) in Athletics and/or Acrobatics, while the untrained historian doesn't have either of those in Arcana. You can only be better than the acrobat if you have a better ability score in the relevant skill, or are higher level, and those are more-marginal than the historian's never having cracked a book of magickal theory.