D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[Parmandur]

Like @Fenris-77 I'm in a similar position, at least as to having played a lot of 3.x, skipping 4E, then jumping into 5E. There were some things that wrong-footed me about 5E at first, but it fell into place pretty quickly, but it's possible that my time playing and running Fate helped me figure out some of the stuff going on in and around Backgrounds in 5E. Also, I've never been afraid to tinker in the rules, and 5E has a lot of space in which to tinker.

I think using the "Background Skills" alternate system comes pretty close to just being polyhedral Fate, in some big ways. The OSR movement was also a big influence, methinks...

 

[prabe]

I think using the "Background Skills" alternate system comes pretty close to just being polyhedral Fate, in some big ways. The OSR movement was also a big influence, methinks...

The various alternative skills systems do seem to reflect heavy influence from Fate (and Fate Accelerated, if I remember correctly). I wasn't paying enough attention while OSR was doing its movement thing to have any opinion on OSR's influence on 5E (but you're not the first I've seen suggest it, and given my understanding of the design goals it seems plausible on its face).

 

[Parmandur]

The various alternative skills systems do seem to reflect heavy influence from Fate (and Fate Accelerated, if I remember correctly). I wasn't paying enough attention while OSR was doing its movement thing to have any opinion on OSR's influence on 5E (but you're not the first I've seen suggest it, and given my understanding of the design goals it seems plausible on its face).

One of the more successful OSR games, Castles & Crusades, was a d20 3.x variant that removed the Skill systt entirely and made all action resolution Ability Checks adjudicated by the DM. This was roughly the whole OSR approach, which was to roll RPG gameplay to a pre-2E style while keeping some newer stuff that was liked.

5E didn't go all out like that, but they learned and iterated...

 

[The Green Hermit]

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?

There is the short list of very broad skills for characters, and craft skills (and many thieving skills) seem to fall under proficiency with the tools of that trade. . but what about professions that aren't centered around a toolkit?

For example. . .

If a player or DM wanted a PC or NPC to be proficient with soldiering, to know how to function as a professional soldier, to know drill and ceremony, military procedure and bureaucracy, they had options in previous editions.

In 1st and 2nd edition, they could have a Soldiering Non-Weapon Proficiency or a Soldier Secondary Skill.

In 3rd/3.5 edition, that would fall under the Profession (Soldier) skill.

4th edition didn't have Profession skills because WotC infamously said they "weren't fun" and that any games using them weren't fun. That sort of attitude was on the long list of reasons I ignored 4e.

. . .but I'm looking at 5e and trying to see how this would have any sort of profession related skill. The closest I can see for my example is the Soldier background, but that doesn't give any special proficiency on any skills related to soldiering, and there's no way to gain anything like this after beginning the game. There's the training option for languages and tools, but that wouldn't cover a profession.

It seems like a gaping hole in the skills system. So, is there an option I'm overlooking? Is there some rule I'm missing?

You can learn new skills during your downtime. I wish there was a little more official guidance on it, but my table just has crafting become cheaper and faster as you get more proficient, languages get more reliably translated/spoken, and weapon skills are learned for each individual weapon (not the entire class of weapons).

 

[The Green Hermit]

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?

Yep!

 

[The Green Hermit]

This is one reason to use a ruling for the table in question. I look at 250 days, and think that's incredibly short for that kind of effort. In the real world, it takes three years to get through law school, and more to get on the job experience to fully fill out what I'd call "professional level proficiency." And, I'd have to ask - if it takes less than a year, why doesn't just about everyone of any wealth have it? But that's me, not Jester.

I agree with you, however, if the PC was focused on a very narrow aspect of the law -- say inheritance issues, it would make more sense. Then, if they also wanted to be proficient in real estate laws, they would have to focus on that aspect.

 

[The Green Hermit]

In the real world, learning the profession of being a Soldier takes a few months, same for being a police officer. You can learn a lot in a few months of downtime.

D&D games I've played in have often had weeks or months of downtimes between adventures, especially between plot arcs.

Maybe they decide to take some downtime while their Cleric is working on crafting some big important magic item they need and spent several quests getting all the components for, and right as he was finishing up with that, his Church decides to send him on a retreat to a monastery that will also take months and in that time he lives cloistered off in the mountains and essentially gains the hermit profession. . .

The fighter the party got conscripted into the Royal Army, and there's a year long gap of his conscription before he's available for adventuring again, and in that time he learns soldiering.

The party wizard from a hermit background decides to join mainstream wizard society and joins a college of wizardry and enters academia. . .and he's essentially learning the Sage profession.

The party thief from a charlatan's background decides he's actually pretty dang good with crafting and figures he'll try his hand at honest labor with a crafting guild. . .and picks up the Guild Artisan profession.

Then, a year later when the Cleric has finished his crafting and pilgrimage, the fighter's conscription in the army is ending, the wizard now has a minor faculty position at the college and is now eligible to take a sabbatical to go on some more adventures, the thief is now a recognized journeyman and is free to travel to other masters to learn from (which means he can also meet up with his old buddies). . .and after a year apart and learning and having their own adventures they have each learned a new profession, but are now back together and able to adventure again.

In my game, we earn 10 days of downtime after every adventure, but it doesn't need to be spent at that time. New characters do not gain the same downtime as everybody else has, but anybody who wants/needs more downtime has to roll to see if it gets granted or if they have an unexpected encounter instead. (If the party is only stopping in a town for two nights, I don't count that as downtime, since they are just resupplying.)

Yes, that means players have to keep track of both downtime and training, but it isn't that hard. They just jot it down on the same sheet they track XP on.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Yeah. When I said I could see it being reasonable, I had in mind a game with adequate downtime for it to work. My games haven't worked out that way, but others' games can differ.

That's why we split the training progression into 5 sections. You gradually gain proficiency; it doesn't happen all at once. And if you are using it in the field, that counts toward training time as well, although not as much as a full day of training.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with you, however, if the PC was focused on a very narrow aspect of the law -- say inheritance issues, it would make more sense. Then, if they also wanted to be proficient in real estate laws, they would have to focus on that aspect.

If the PC wanted to focus on a very narrow aspect of the law... I'd remind them that we aren't playing Lawyers and Litigations.

 

[The Green Hermit]

If the PC wanted to focus on a very narrow aspect of the law... I'd remind them that we aren't playing Lawyers and Litigations.

I mostly agree, but then my PCs wouldn't be worried about the law in the first place.