Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6084245" data-attributes="member: 1465">Maybe because their class is not their lifestyle and didn't necessarily require training. Maybe because their background is their lifestyle i.e. it's what they do every single day except when on an adventure, it's their role in society and it's what it earns them a living, whether they were trained by someone or on their own.You can assume every Fighter had to be trained hard before being level 1. But it could be said also that a mere 10% higher chance of hitting with a sword (compared to a peasant of similar Str) is simply the result of being naturally inclined to fighting. You can assume every 1st level Cleric has learned to cast spells because he was trained in a temple by others who knew how to cast spells. But it could be said also that he just developed the ability to perform miracles spontaneously (clerical spells as miracles are in fact a not so rare interpretation of their spellcasting), i.e. Cleric more like a saint rather than a priest.Rogues stopped being Thieves in 3ed, before that there was quite a clear connection between their class and their lifestyle, but after that the connection has become optional, and the Rogue included more archetypes than just the Thief; it could also be said that a 1st level Rogue is someone naturally talented at hacking things and improvising: he doesn't have to had training, he might just see a lock and instinctively manage by trial-and-error at figuring out how to jam it.Wizards are usually seen like someone who really required training or study even for 1st level, but before the 3ed Sorcerers the same Wizard class also had to be used to represent naturally gifted people who just cast spells without even knowing why.The the Fighter, the Cleric, the Rogue and the Wizard walk into their first dungeon... and put their natural talents and inclinations into use. The Fighter learns a lot just from his first few fights about how to control his natural battle instincts, the Cleric understands more about his inner gifts, the Rogue records his successes and failure and turns them into expertise, the Wizard... well I guess the Wizard is again the most difficult of the bunch to explain <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But in practice... all characters in D&D advance in their class by gathering experience, which comes from doing their things during adventures, not training. There aren't training rules in D&D, AFAIK there have never been any in the core books of any edition. Therefore it's not so necessary to see that 1st level as training-based, when the other levels from 2nd onward are not (directly at least) training-based.I'm not against your view on training, it's not bad at all. I just want to point out that there is another view, and D&D is not far off from it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification