D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't think any edition has had precise rules for "expert in conveyancy law!"

 

[The Green Hermit]

Except in 5e, the skill system is so broad that a single skill often covers things that would be 2 or 3 skills in other editions of D&D. If Athletics can cover swimming, climbing and jumping. . .if proficiency with Thieves's Tools can cover picking locks and disarming traps. . .if Arcana can cover both knowledge of magic and other planes of existence. . .if Stealth can cover both hiding and moving silently. . .there can be a single proficiency for the various professional knowledge of a field that isn't covered by other things and might fall under multiple similarly related fields of knowledge.


Except, as I've pointed out repeatedly, there's no option, in the RAW, to learn or gain another set of professional knowledge. The idea that once you've learned your initial trade before your adventuring life, and this is the ONLY profession you can know seems rather limited.

Backgrounds DID emerge into d20 in the 3e era, they were originally from d20 Modern, but they weren't meant to be the ONLY thing a character could do as a trade or occupation, they were packages of background abilities to reflect learning and experiences that happened before the adventuring life.

5e didn't invent the backgrounds system, it just imported it from another source into D&D.

Backgrounds are something I don't mind about 5e at all. I'd often toyed with the idea of introducing them into my 3.5 games by adapting the ones from d20 Modern/Urban Arcana. The idea that someone's background is the ONLY profession they know how to do, and the only one they can ever learn, that is the part that's bothering me as a limitation on the system.

Yes there is. It is in the Downtime Activities. Admittedly, it is pretty vague, but it is still there.

 

[bedir than]

This is another reminder that Farmer's Tools should be on the tools list

 

[iserith]

This is another reminder that Farmer's Tools should be on the tools list

Mining tools, too.

 

[Ashrym]

One of the complaint that was made in this thread was that a lawyer character built this way would be equally good at estimating the likely outcome of a trial based on precedent (INT+history) and at remembering the list of the Roman emperors, and he'd mechanically need to be a very good haggler (CHA+persuasion) as a side effect of him presenting a case in front of a judge. I think having him be proficient in tne tools of the lawyers resolve that problem (as it narrows the proficiency to a specific field while broadening it to several key "skills").

I would say that's because adventurers learn a broader scope in order to adventure instead of learning a limited scope to spend all their time in a court of law. If you want to have that limited scope then use the background proficiency option because then it would relate directly to legal history. It's still simple and doable.

 

[wingsandsword]

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.

 

[Fenris-77]

Adding to the tool proficiencies is a fine way to expand professions. That said, in any given case if you get a little tremor of doubt about the 'tool-ness' I'd go another way. Personally, in those cases I'd just count the background name as a non-ability-indexed skill that can be rolled like any other skill. So the character with the Soldier backgound has the skill Soldier in which he is proficient (roll plus stat applicable to specific task). In cases where the background isn't specific enough, I'd just name the skill after the profession. So you scholar background character who's a lawyer gets the Lawyer skill instead of one called scholar. I use those two examples because I think they both escape the usefulness of tools as a defining aspect of the job. Any profession should be covered by one or the other of a tool or skill IMO.

In cases where the profession skill might heavily overlap with an extant skill, say Lawyer and History for something to do with legal history I'd allow advantage on the roll. That gets a little bit trickier to adjudicate for something physical and combat related like Soldier, but even then I can think of examples, like giving advantage on deception checks to pass as a soldier, or advantage on attempts to persuade a soldier of something.

 

[BluejayJunior]

If you're dead set on keeping professions as a formalized part of the game with very strict rules, yeah I guess that would be the way to go.
Honestly, I'd try to play the game without changes (or with minor changes) to begin with, and then add/change things to fit your group. In actual play, you might find they aren't really missing as much as it may seem on the surface.
Also an important point, how does the rest of your group feel about the "missing" professions? If they feel it is a big problem, then use this fix for it. If it doesn't bother them, then save yourself the worry and trouble of making a new system for professions and just run it as is.

 

[prabe]

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.

That would be a way to do it, yes. If you look in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, there are example of things (with DCs) one can do with tool proficiencies. It's worth looking at, especially if you're looking to add tools, just as a slightly different perspective on them.

 

[prabe]

In cases where the profession skill might heavily overlap with an extant skill, say Lawyer and History for something to do with legal history I'd allow advantage on the roll. That gets a little bit trickier to adjudicate for something physical and combat related like Soldier, but even then I can think of examples, like giving advantage on deception checks to pass as a soldier, or advantage on attempts to persuade a soldier of something.

I think I'd just codify the Advantage thing to only apply to Ability Checks, to avoid the oddity of the Soldier and combat. If you're worried about in-combat things other than attack rolls, maybe limit it to out-of-combat--or unopposed, I guess, but that eliminates the benefits for your example of passing as a soldier.