Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General A general question about DnD Characters

When we create a char we start as lv1 char as one of the classes.

Does the game assume we had months or years of training before becoming a lv1 char?

A lv1 fighter is profient with martial weapons and heavy armor, a mage can read magic scrolls and so on. I guess it takes some time and effort to learn this and the average farmer or merchant will never learn this.
Maybe with the exception of sorcerers (who have literally magic in their blood) does the game assume you had a trainer, you were trained in a temple or something similar and does your relationship to that trainer (in a broader sense) play an important role in the game?

This question is more about DnD in general, not specific to this game.

Unlike what a lot of people seem to assume, yes. A level 1 character is, comparatively, very strong and well-trained. You're very skilled at multiple skills and forms of combat even at level 1.

Depends. Wizards yes, rogues and fighters (or sorcerers) not really.
In 3E different classes had different minumum ages for PCs, indicating their training

Yep - in fact the game also includes varied starting ages. From 3.5e, on page 109 of the Player's handbook, is a list of starting ages based on race and class. It doesn't translate well here from a copy and paste method, but humans have a base starting age of 15. Barbarians, rogues, and sorcerors add 1d4 years to get to level 1; bards, fighters, paladins, and rangers add 1d6 years; clerics, druids, monks, and wizards add 2d6 years - this represents their training in their roles. The DM Guide then adds classes not meant for player characters since they aren't fighting classes or are nerfed: adepts are tribal societies' versions of wizards and clerics, aristocrats are your spoiled nobles and specialize in educated skills, commoners are your regular Joe Peasant who goes around toiling, and experts are your craftsmen who have a bunch of skill points in crafting skills and such. Like everything else, this isn't explicitly forbidden for player characters - but they probably don't want to be the blacksmith out to find the kid napped by kobolds and so the classes aren't meant for them - but meant for fighting mobs and the like. Just watch out for the +3 pitchfork of magic missiles.

That's 3.5 anyway and I'm not sure how much 5e dumbed it down, but the basic concept would be unchanged.

Not fighter or rogues? A rogue supposedly has skills in picpocketing and lockpicking (not to talk about stealth and backstab) that requires experience to master, a lot of it. Fighters can use all weapons, swords, maces, bow, shortbows, spears and so on how can do that without training? Even when wars explode and states force enlist to increase their army the new recruits go through (even if fast) training.

Fighters are proficient in fighting with literally every commonly used weapon, and can use them in any kind of armor. That's a lot of skill that requires a lot of training.

1d6 years of training.

@Madscientist, yes, a level 1 character is more than an ordinary person in society with respect to their training and experience in whatever class they gain that first level. However, the exact amount of those experiences can vary somewhat, from game to game and from class to class. And those experiences are what you are supposed to write up in your character background for your DM in a PnP game, at least it was in all games I was in or which I ran. This has been true across all D&D editions. I started playing with 2e some 25+ years ago.

Level 1 characters are not ordinary farmers. When you're level 1 it is assumed that you have years of training (fighters, rogues) or study (casters).
Though it is assumed that spellcasters are supposed to be older at level 1 than martial classes. A level 1 human wizard will be in his 30s.

Thank you very much.

This leads to another question:
If I start as fighter and multi class to mage, does it mean the DM says: "OK, you go to a temple and train there for 3 years." In the meantime the other single class characters continue the adventure, gain many levels and maybe even finish the whole story.

Most GMs simply ignore training, as it would halt the game. Is like a quality of life improvement in a video game, even if it doesn't make sense.
For example playing a table for one year and reaching level 20 with a caster is nonsensical lorewise. Level 20 casters from the lore like Blackstaff and Elminster are centuries old, even in BG level 10 wizards will be very old.

As I love quoting it:


Literally everything depends on the DM who can adapt anything they want, so saying most DMs ignoring it is meaningless, but technically the character is going through some sort of training to be able to get it. However, this training isn't as intense as the initial training.

If you are a rogue, perhaps you started developing your abilities around 7-8-9 years old throughout your teenagers years, stealing food at the marketplace . You might also have followed or force to follow a street gang. Knives are easy to hide and carry while you are running away.

If you are a fighter, perhaps you have followed a role model during your teenagers time and practice with the sword (GoT Aria practicing with the sword her brother gave her). Although I would see Aria as rogue/fighter. What you think ?

-S

That is not at all in line with Dungeons and Dragons. Now, 5e did reduce Rogues to just petty thieves as seen in the difference between the editions:



However, it still doesn't follow that they are commonly orphan children who are making their living as petty thieves before they even hit puberty. Most would be starting in adulthood just the same.

Though, this does give rise to the fact that Astarion as a rogue just doesn't work in 5e because 5e oversimplified things wildly - though he would be an ideal rogue in 3.5e.

I would say that the backend story, prior to level 1, is really up to you (and perhaps with the DM's help). There are so many permutations that can lead to: I'm starting my story as rogue level 1 and Im a Minotaur, my name is Sherlock Horns !



-S

sigh - 3.5e would make you be a lvl 1 Minotaur instead and pick up rogue at a later level. The idea of a lvl 1 Minotaur/rogue just is overpowered unless 5e nerfed the hell out of Minotaurs.

Minotaur's are probably nerfed to the ground just like most of the "player races" that used to be monsters. There is no level adjustment anymore like 3.5 use to have. Good example would be Drow and Teiflings, both that had level adjustments.

This took a while to find, but in a previous thread, I went through the 5e races that used to be monsters in 3.5

Monster Races

There were several books that covered making those monster races playable - including a book dedicated to just generally telling you how to do it so you could play as whatever.

It's called the DMG, and it has guidelines for creating balanced playable races for players of any type of creature. It's 5th edition ^.^

It's interesting that you'll speak upwardly of 3.5 for giving the GM power and flexibility over everything... but you insist on bashing 5e for literally doing the exact same thing, Veronica. You clearly have an issue with 5e (and that's fine! It's not for everyone!), but you aren't articulating it well - you're just taking every opportunity to make functionally baseless or intellectually dishonest jabs and barbs at the system, or insult it without backing up what your saying except with cherry-pciked bits and pieces that ignore the sections that illustrate your dishonesty.

Maybe it's not intentional... but it looks intentional right now.

To the original questions:

In 5e at least, story and background trumps hard rules in terms of where your character comes from and what kind of training they have. It's left predominately in the hands of you and your DM to decide what works ad makes sense for you. You might play a middle-aged and fairly grizzled former watchman who is striking out on adventure or is dedicating themselves to a greater oath of righteousness now - their history is the explanation for their above-commoner level capabilities and experience. OR, you might be playing a seventeen year old halfling girl who ran away from home to see the world, and has only recently discovered the beginning blooms of the kinds of magical power her music, song and dance can evoke if she puts her heart into it... Your exact amount of experience in an adventuring lifestyle is almost entirely between you and your DM. the game rules give you as et of proficiencies and skills to represent your beginning point as an adventurer, but you can decide with your DM how you came by them, or even if you have access to all of that right away, if you want.

Multi-classing has some further guidelines and rules for it in the handbook - most importantly, you don't get everything from the new class as though you'd started a level 1 character, because, presumably, you don't have the same background and training or history to explain a full initial class. Instead, you get a small subset of class-related extras along with your 1st level abilities for the new class - you might gain one extra skill, or prociciency in a type of armour you weren't good with before - but you wont' get three new skills, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency and saving throws. Beyond that, Multiclassing also has some simple strictures and requirements; in order to class into anew class, you have to meet some minimum ability score thresholds, which you don't need to meet for your first class; this mostly represents you having sufficient natural aptitude for the new skill set to jump into it at an accelerated rate, without the background training or build up that you might have had for your first class.

In terms of multi-classing access and training, again, this is something that is largely in the hands of you and your DM: you DM might ask you for a justification for your multiclass, or an explanation of why and how you're picking up this skill set now, or they may suggest multi-class options to you based on actions and focuses that your character has been displaying. They also might not, and if no-one at the table feels it's strictly necessary so long as you meet the ability score requirements then that's what works for that table. Usually, when training is brouht up in a multi-classing situation, the training is treated as an on-the-job kind of deal, rather than breaking from the game - unless, of course, you level up at the same time has being given some down time, and you want to work your acquisition of anew class into that scenario. It's very varied, is the basic point ^.^