So when we have downtime can we use it to help gain feats. Like to train our selves or something, can we do that?
That's not a rule of the game, no. As with anything, it's up to your DM. But Feats are gained at various points when you level up--if your DM is even using Feats, which are an optional rule. There isn't a rule written into the game to get them by just training.
As Brotherbock points out, it is up to DM. I would base it on the language/tool training in XGtE. Since the skilled feat can gain you 3 proficiencies, multiply the required time by 3. So, 30 weeks of downtime to equal a feat outside of class progression.
I would not allow it, as It will trade downtime for combat viability which typically scewers balance and fun within groups. Feats are very powerful in 5e, and comboning them makes for powerful combinations the normal amount limits. It also threads on the benefits of a fighter who get more feats than others.
Also, some races live long giving then a definite advantage. An elf at 600 years could have all the feats in the book many times over.
I would not allow it, as It will trade downtime for combat viability which typically scewers balance and fun within groups. Feats are very powerful in 5e, and comboning them makes for powerful combinations the normal amount limits. It also threads on the benefits of a fighter who get more feats than others.
Also, some races live long giving then a definite advantage. An elf at 600 years could have all the feats in the book many times over.
just my two cent :)
Agreed. The point of the game isn't to start having fun once you can do cool things. The point is the getting of the cool abilities--adventuring to get EXP to get levels to get the abilities. Otherwise, just start at 20th level and game forever with no advancement.
As per the Dungeon Master's Guide (page 231), it is an option if the DM allows it, and general consensus is that a feat should take as long as 2 or 3 tool proficiencies to train. Xanathar's Guide to Everything (page 134) lists training a tool or language proficiency at taking 10 - Intelligence modifier work weeks, at a cost of 25 gold per work week. This means it should take 8 to 30 work weeks to train a feat, depending on intelligence modifier.
Keep in mind, it is a special reward, being very difficult to find someone who can, and is willing to teach. So it is rare.
In "reality", this makes sense - especially for long lived species - that you'd have plenty of time to learn these skills.
The problem from a game balance perspective is that downtime is not a limited commodity, and you're now trading a theoretically unlimited commodity for a tangible benefit - essentially getting something for free: OK, so we take a year off, and I learn this feat, and two skills - and this really costs you nothing, and no "real" time.
I could see a good DM not allowing the events of the campaign to be so slow as to give you that amount of time in one block ( imagine what would have happened in Lord of the Rings if Frodo had decided to take a year off ), but there's really nothing requiring the DM to keep your down time limited.
Both the "yes" or the "no" answers have problems - lack of plausibility vs. lack of game balance.
I don't have an answer to solve both problems - so like most people here, I'd likely not allow it. But I'd like to solve the "downtime problem" as well. That'll take some thought.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Back in college, a roommate started a Middle Earth campaign (in Rolemaster). I wanted to be an elf. Elves in Middle Earth are immortal--they can be killed, but they don't die of old age.
So I asked if I could be 13,000 years old.
The DM was going to allow it, but then we realized that this would make me older than literally all of creation. So we revised my character's age to 1,300 years old.
It was a fun campaign, but it was always a little awkward to explain how I'd been alive for 1,300 years and was 1st level, with all and only the skills of a 1st level character. Really--what exactly had I been doing for 1,300 years? Apparently...not a whole lot. I said that most of that time I'd been a sailor. But I really wasn't all that great at sailing. Just '1st level with a skill' competent. Not '1,300 years competent'.
The lesson I took away from that is to try to minimize 'off camera' time for the characters as much as possible. And if you can't...just realize you'll have to choose between OP characters on the other side of the downtime, or mildly awkward answers to the question "So, what have you been up to all these years?"
But yeah - it drives home the fact that in-world time is a valuable commodity. I agree that you either have to control the accumulation of that commodity, or you have to make it worthless: i.e. you can't train in downtime.
Thinking back to Campaign 1 of Critical Role - they did have extended blocks of downtime, periodically, in which they were allowed to train and acquire new skills, but that was kind of presented as a reward at the end of a major plot arc resolution. Most of the time Vox Machina was just too busy for downtime training.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So those of us in favor think it should take roughly 30 weeks at 25GP per week with a teacher to learn a feat with downtime.
And those of us opposed think it would make long lived races too overpowered because long lived races have infinite money and dozens of teachers on standby.
I think my DM must be nerfing long lived races, my 200 year old dwarf started with 30GP and no free feats. I should have at least 20000GP if the opposing arguments are anything to go by (and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't have a problem with this house ruled downtime).
Your ( apparent? ) sarcasm aside, I think a 200 year old dwarf which started out at the same level as an 18 year old Human, is probably nerfed - from the perspective of how the world should work. Otherwise you're saying that the Dwarf accomplishes nothing, and learns no skills, in 200 years.
Clearly long lived races don't have infinite money and dozens of teachers on hand, but neither are they shoved into barrels at 16 and not let out for the next 184 years, when they're suddenly dumped out of their barrels and told to go adventuring.
Which is why I'd not allow a 200 year old adventurer Dwarf in my level 1 game. The Players should start out on a level playing field. I'd no more allow a 200 year old Dwarf into a level 1 campaign, than I'd allow a 50-year-old human wizard who has spent his entire professional life studying in a mage college into it - at least without a plausible reason as to why the Dwarf hasn't learned anything in 200 years, or the Mage never learned anything about magic since he was 18.
A 40 year old Dwarf ( assuming that's the rough cultural/developmental equivalent of a human 18 year old )? Sure - that makes sense in a 1st level party.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So those of us in favor think it should take roughly 30 weeks at 25GP per week with a teacher to learn a feat with downtime.
And those of us opposed think it would make long lived races too overpowered because long lived races have infinite money and dozens of teachers on standby.
I think my DM must be nerfing long lived races, my 200 year old dwarf started with 30GP and no free feats. I should have at least 20000GP if the opposing arguments are anything to go by (and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't have a problem with this house ruled downtime).
What I think is that my 1300 year old elf was kinda funny to have to explain, but that it rarely came up and had no other impact on the entire multi-year campaign. So what I think is that people should play it however they and their DMs are happy with. Why should I care if another group wants to play it a different way? If players and DM are happy with ending one session, waving their hands, saying, "Okay, now, 10 years later...", leveling everyone up 10 levels and giving out feats, by all means go ahead.
I would say that it makes little sense to bother with cost during excessively long downtimes. If you're assumed to be training during a 300 year span, why aren't you assumed to be making money during that same time? But if you want to knock some money off the character sheet, why not?
Your ( apparent? ) sarcasm aside, I think a 200 year old dwarf which started out at the same level as an 18 year old Human, is probably nerfed - from the perspective of how the world should work. Otherwise you're saying that the Dwarf accomplishes nothing, and learns no skills, in 200 years.
Clearly long lived races don't have infinite money and dozens of teachers on hand, but neither are they shoved into barrels at 16 and not let out for the next 184 years, when they're suddenly dumped out of their barrels and told to go adventuring.
Which is why I'd not allow a 200 year old adventurer Dwarf in my level 1 game. The Players should start out on a level playing field. I'd no more allow a 200 year old Dwarf into a level 1 campaign, than I'd allow a 50-year-old human wizard who has spent his entire professional life studying in a mage college into it - at least without a plausible reason as to why the Dwarf hasn't learned anything in 200 years, or the Mage never learned anything about magic since he was 18.
A 40 year old Dwarf ( assuming that's the rough cultural/developmental equivalent of a human 18 year old )? Sure - that makes sense in a 1st level party.
Of course my dwarf character acomplished something in his 200 years. He had a job (and a family). The skills from that job are reflected in his proficiencies from his background. But he only just became an adventurer, thus: level 1 (actually we are starting at level 3, and I tied those levels into millitary experience in his backstory, but not the point).
The point is before a character becomes an adventurer (regardless of race or age), they did not have the time or money to waste training combat feats. They spent their days making money to spend on life style expenses. So everything makes sense, and is balanced. All characters start a campaign with the same amount of adventure prep (regardless of age or race) and get the same amount of downtime within that campaign.
I would say that it makes little sense to bother with cost during excessively long downtimes. If you're assumed to be training during a 300 year span, why aren't you assumed to be making money during that same time? But if you want to knock some money off the character sheet, why not?
Training and earning money, are different downtime activities. The required time to learn a skill or feat assumes you do nothing else besides rest during that time (same for any other downtime). So to also work to make money extends the amount of time it would take to finish the training.
You don't need to bother with costs for time skipped with the character doing nothing, because the character can earn enough to get by with little effort. But to buy new equipment or pay a teacher, these are expenses outside lifestyle expense, and moreover they subtract from the time you spend earning money.
Of course my dwarf character acomplished something in his 200 years. He had a job (and a family). The skills from that job are reflected in his proficiencies from his background. But he only just became an adventurer, thus: level 1 (actually we are starting at level 3, and I tied those levels into millitary experience in his backstory, but not the point).
The point is before a character becomes an adventurer (regardless of race or age), they did not have the time or money to waste training combat feats. They spent their days making money to spend on life style expenses. So everything makes sense, and is balanced. All characters start a campaign with the same amount of adventure prep (regardless of age or race) and get the same amount of downtime within that campaign.
This is the part that I was talking about as just being something you have to shrug about. Your dwarf in 200 years picked up the same skills my character did in 18 years? Okay...seems like somewhat of a slow learner :) I mean, not to brag, but looking at my own life--I'd be really good at my non-combat life skills if I was doing them for 200 years. I suspect I'd be much better than someone who'd been doing it for 18 years. Or I would have had the time to become equally good at a lot more things.
From my perspective, this again has very little impact on game play. It's just a thing you have to wave your hands about and not bring up all that much. Like why no castle/tavern/manor house floor plan maps ever have bathrooms, and the grounds maps have no outhouses. It's...because...hey let's roll some dice! :)
Sure - I agree that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for him to pick up combat feats in 200 years of peaceful civilian life. He'd need some sort of in-character justification to give him a reason to pick up combat abilities.
However, not all skill and feats are combat oriented. Sorry - no free expertise in History ( he lived through the last 200 years )? No free Expertise in smithing tools, assuming he's been a smith for 150+ years - you can substitute in whatever profession and associated skill you like there if he's not a smith; maybe he was a brewer. No new languages? Never learned any instruments or learned to sing ( bonus to that Performance skill! )? He never learned First Aid in all that time ( Healer )? He hasn't been working out for 200 years, so no bonus to Athletics ( talk about skipping leg day! )? Talking with, and interacting with people for 200 years hasn't given him any bonus edge to Insight? Never ridden horses ( or ponies for Dwarves, I guess ) to any extent in 200 years, so no boost to Animal Handling?
None of that?
In 200 years he never had the luck, or good management, to scrape up the funds to hire a teacher that could teach him anything? He's been that broke, all the time, for 200 years? He's never had any interest in learning things from the people willing to teach him for free? How the hell did he become an adventurer if he's that much of a sodden apathetic lump?
You can try and justify why someone living 200 years would have no more skills than someone living 18 years, all you like - I don't see it. Even "spen[ding] their days making money to spend on life style expenses", they're going to accumulate life skills and experience. I sure as hell do, and I'm not a Dungeon Delver, or Dragon Slayer; I don't have "destroy the One Ring" on my bucket list.
Even bumbling through life you're going to pick up experience and knowledge. Do that for 200 years and there is no way you and an 18-year-old Human are equals.
Do that for 600 to 1,300 years and you're not remotely on the same level as Humans - which is why ( I believe ) even the non-adventuring Elves in Tolkien's writings lived apart from the world, and all the adventuring types are cast as relatively young for their people.
Which brings me back to that 40 year old Dwarf, not a 200 year old one.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Even bumbling through life you're going to pick up experience and knowledge. Do that for 200 years and there is no way you and an 18-year-old Human are equals.
And forget 18. As far as I can tell, the PHB says that you can choose "any age". And there are no restrictions I can find on starting skills depending on age. Are there?
So your 200 year old dwarf would have all the same skills as my 5 year old human :D
Even bumbling through life you're going to pick up experience and knowledge. Do that for 200 years and there is no way you and an 18-year-old Human are equals.
And forget 18. As far as I can tell, the PHB says that you can choose "any age". And there are no restrictions I can find on starting skills depending on age. Are there?
So your 200 year old dwarf would have all the same skills as my 5 year old human :D
You can do the same thing for 50 years and not get appreciably better at it. You can also get good at something, stop doing it, and lose your skills. How long you've been doing something isn't nearly as important as how big a priority being #1 at that thing is in your life, actively pushing your limits, thinking critically about your mistakes, and being exposed to people that are better than you at that skill.
I don't think it's far-fetched for an old character to have been doing the same job for decades without being a master, and then for whatever reason deciding to become an adventurer.
The way 5e handles skills is an oversimplification anyways. Getting better at fighting dragons and dungeon delving shouldn't make you better at your skills, but it does.
Even bumbling through life you're going to pick up experience and knowledge. Do that for 200 years and there is no way you and an 18-year-old Human are equals.
And forget 18. As far as I can tell, the PHB says that you can choose "any age". And there are no restrictions I can find on starting skills depending on age. Are there?
So your 200 year old dwarf would have all the same skills as my 5 year old human :D
The answer to all this is "because game balance".
Oh, no question. I'm not particularly complaining about this whole thing. I wasn't complaining about my Rolemaster elf. Just pointing out that things don't fit nicely much of the time. If you wanted to pay attention to these sort of things and keep game balance, you could develop some sort of complex table of ability modifiers due to age, and knock down the older character but give him more skills, etc etc. But then you're not playing with a system as simple as 5e. It's a tradeoff.
But it's just the things to consider when people decide what their groups should do with downtime, that's all. If you can deal with the odd questions about lazy elves and dwarves, you're good to go :)
So when we have downtime can we use it to help gain feats. Like to train our selves or something, can we do that?
That's not a rule of the game, no. As with anything, it's up to your DM. But Feats are gained at various points when you level up--if your DM is even using Feats, which are an optional rule. There isn't a rule written into the game to get them by just training.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
As Brotherbock points out, it is up to DM. I would base it on the language/tool training in XGtE. Since the skilled feat can gain you 3 proficiencies, multiply the required time by 3. So, 30 weeks of downtime to equal a feat outside of class progression.
I think the opportunity cost is fairly balanced.
I would not allow it, as It will trade downtime for combat viability which typically scewers balance and fun within groups. Feats are very powerful in 5e, and comboning them makes for powerful combinations the normal amount limits. It also threads on the benefits of a fighter who get more feats than others.
Also, some races live long giving then a definite advantage. An elf at 600 years could have all the feats in the book many times over.
just my two cent :)
Agreed. The point of the game isn't to start having fun once you can do cool things. The point is the getting of the cool abilities--adventuring to get EXP to get levels to get the abilities. Otherwise, just start at 20th level and game forever with no advancement.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
As per the Dungeon Master's Guide (page 231), it is an option if the DM allows it, and general consensus is that a feat should take as long as 2 or 3 tool proficiencies to train. Xanathar's Guide to Everything (page 134) lists training a tool or language proficiency at taking 10 - Intelligence modifier work weeks, at a cost of 25 gold per work week. This means it should take 8 to 30 work weeks to train a feat, depending on intelligence modifier.
Keep in mind, it is a special reward, being very difficult to find someone who can, and is willing to teach. So it is rare.
In "reality", this makes sense - especially for long lived species - that you'd have plenty of time to learn these skills.
The problem from a game balance perspective is that downtime is not a limited commodity, and you're now trading a theoretically unlimited commodity for a tangible benefit - essentially getting something for free: OK, so we take a year off, and I learn this feat, and two skills - and this really costs you nothing, and no "real" time.
I could see a good DM not allowing the events of the campaign to be so slow as to give you that amount of time in one block ( imagine what would have happened in Lord of the Rings if Frodo had decided to take a year off ), but there's really nothing requiring the DM to keep your down time limited.
Both the "yes" or the "no" answers have problems - lack of plausibility vs. lack of game balance.
I don't have an answer to solve both problems - so like most people here, I'd likely not allow it. But I'd like to solve the "downtime problem" as well. That'll take some thought.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Back in college, a roommate started a Middle Earth campaign (in Rolemaster). I wanted to be an elf. Elves in Middle Earth are immortal--they can be killed, but they don't die of old age.
So I asked if I could be 13,000 years old.
The DM was going to allow it, but then we realized that this would make me older than literally all of creation. So we revised my character's age to 1,300 years old.
It was a fun campaign, but it was always a little awkward to explain how I'd been alive for 1,300 years and was 1st level, with all and only the skills of a 1st level character. Really--what exactly had I been doing for 1,300 years? Apparently...not a whole lot. I said that most of that time I'd been a sailor. But I really wasn't all that great at sailing. Just '1st level with a skill' competent. Not '1,300 years competent'.
The lesson I took away from that is to try to minimize 'off camera' time for the characters as much as possible. And if you can't...just realize you'll have to choose between OP characters on the other side of the downtime, or mildly awkward answers to the question "So, what have you been up to all these years?"
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
1,300 years of slacking! :D
But yeah - it drives home the fact that in-world time is a valuable commodity. I agree that you either have to control the accumulation of that commodity, or you have to make it worthless: i.e. you can't train in downtime.
Thinking back to Campaign 1 of Critical Role - they did have extended blocks of downtime, periodically, in which they were allowed to train and acquire new skills, but that was kind of presented as a reward at the end of a major plot arc resolution. Most of the time Vox Machina was just too busy for downtime training.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So those of us in favor think it should take roughly 30 weeks at 25GP per week with a teacher to learn a feat with downtime.
And those of us opposed think it would make long lived races too overpowered because long lived races have infinite money and dozens of teachers on standby.
I think my DM must be nerfing long lived races, my 200 year old dwarf started with 30GP and no free feats. I should have at least 20000GP if the opposing arguments are anything to go by (and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't have a problem with this house ruled downtime).
Your ( apparent? ) sarcasm aside, I think a 200 year old dwarf which started out at the same level as an 18 year old Human, is probably nerfed - from the perspective of how the world should work. Otherwise you're saying that the Dwarf accomplishes nothing, and learns no skills, in 200 years.
Clearly long lived races don't have infinite money and dozens of teachers on hand, but neither are they shoved into barrels at 16 and not let out for the next 184 years, when they're suddenly dumped out of their barrels and told to go adventuring.
Which is why I'd not allow a 200 year old adventurer Dwarf in my level 1 game. The Players should start out on a level playing field. I'd no more allow a 200 year old Dwarf into a level 1 campaign, than I'd allow a 50-year-old human wizard who has spent his entire professional life studying in a mage college into it - at least without a plausible reason as to why the Dwarf hasn't learned anything in 200 years, or the Mage never learned anything about magic since he was 18.
A 40 year old Dwarf ( assuming that's the rough cultural/developmental equivalent of a human 18 year old )? Sure - that makes sense in a 1st level party.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
What I think is that my 1300 year old elf was kinda funny to have to explain, but that it rarely came up and had no other impact on the entire multi-year campaign. So what I think is that people should play it however they and their DMs are happy with. Why should I care if another group wants to play it a different way? If players and DM are happy with ending one session, waving their hands, saying, "Okay, now, 10 years later...", leveling everyone up 10 levels and giving out feats, by all means go ahead.
I would say that it makes little sense to bother with cost during excessively long downtimes. If you're assumed to be training during a 300 year span, why aren't you assumed to be making money during that same time? But if you want to knock some money off the character sheet, why not?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Of course my dwarf character acomplished something in his 200 years. He had a job (and a family). The skills from that job are reflected in his proficiencies from his background. But he only just became an adventurer, thus: level 1 (actually we are starting at level 3, and I tied those levels into millitary experience in his backstory, but not the point).
The point is before a character becomes an adventurer (regardless of race or age), they did not have the time or money to waste training combat feats. They spent their days making money to spend on life style expenses. So everything makes sense, and is balanced. All characters start a campaign with the same amount of adventure prep (regardless of age or race) and get the same amount of downtime within that campaign.
Training and earning money, are different downtime activities. The required time to learn a skill or feat assumes you do nothing else besides rest during that time (same for any other downtime). So to also work to make money extends the amount of time it would take to finish the training.
You don't need to bother with costs for time skipped with the character doing nothing, because the character can earn enough to get by with little effort. But to buy new equipment or pay a teacher, these are expenses outside lifestyle expense, and moreover they subtract from the time you spend earning money.
This is the part that I was talking about as just being something you have to shrug about. Your dwarf in 200 years picked up the same skills my character did in 18 years? Okay...seems like somewhat of a slow learner :) I mean, not to brag, but looking at my own life--I'd be really good at my non-combat life skills if I was doing them for 200 years. I suspect I'd be much better than someone who'd been doing it for 18 years. Or I would have had the time to become equally good at a lot more things.
From my perspective, this again has very little impact on game play. It's just a thing you have to wave your hands about and not bring up all that much. Like why no castle/tavern/manor house floor plan maps ever have bathrooms, and the grounds maps have no outhouses. It's...because...hey let's roll some dice! :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Sure - I agree that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for him to pick up combat feats in 200 years of peaceful civilian life. He'd need some sort of in-character justification to give him a reason to pick up combat abilities.
However, not all skill and feats are combat oriented. Sorry - no free expertise in History ( he lived through the last 200 years )? No free Expertise in smithing tools, assuming he's been a smith for 150+ years - you can substitute in whatever profession and associated skill you like there if he's not a smith; maybe he was a brewer. No new languages? Never learned any instruments or learned to sing ( bonus to that Performance skill! )? He never learned First Aid in all that time ( Healer )? He hasn't been working out for 200 years, so no bonus to Athletics ( talk about skipping leg day! )? Talking with, and interacting with people for 200 years hasn't given him any bonus edge to Insight? Never ridden horses ( or ponies for Dwarves, I guess ) to any extent in 200 years, so no boost to Animal Handling?
None of that?
In 200 years he never had the luck, or good management, to scrape up the funds to hire a teacher that could teach him anything? He's been that broke, all the time, for 200 years? He's never had any interest in learning things from the people willing to teach him for free? How the hell did he become an adventurer if he's that much of a sodden apathetic lump?
You can try and justify why someone living 200 years would have no more skills than someone living 18 years, all you like - I don't see it. Even "spen[ding] their days making money to spend on life style expenses", they're going to accumulate life skills and experience. I sure as hell do, and I'm not a Dungeon Delver, or Dragon Slayer; I don't have "destroy the One Ring" on my bucket list.
Even bumbling through life you're going to pick up experience and knowledge. Do that for 200 years and there is no way you and an 18-year-old Human are equals.
Do that for 600 to 1,300 years and you're not remotely on the same level as Humans - which is why ( I believe ) even the non-adventuring Elves in Tolkien's writings lived apart from the world, and all the adventuring types are cast as relatively young for their people.
Which brings me back to that 40 year old Dwarf, not a 200 year old one.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
And forget 18. As far as I can tell, the PHB says that you can choose "any age". And there are no restrictions I can find on starting skills depending on age. Are there?
So your 200 year old dwarf would have all the same skills as my 5 year old human :D
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The answer to all this is "because game balance".
You can do the same thing for 50 years and not get appreciably better at it. You can also get good at something, stop doing it, and lose your skills. How long you've been doing something isn't nearly as important as how big a priority being #1 at that thing is in your life, actively pushing your limits, thinking critically about your mistakes, and being exposed to people that are better than you at that skill.
I don't think it's far-fetched for an old character to have been doing the same job for decades without being a master, and then for whatever reason deciding to become an adventurer.
The way 5e handles skills is an oversimplification anyways. Getting better at fighting dragons and dungeon delving shouldn't make you better at your skills, but it does.
Oh, no question. I'm not particularly complaining about this whole thing. I wasn't complaining about my Rolemaster elf. Just pointing out that things don't fit nicely much of the time. If you wanted to pay attention to these sort of things and keep game balance, you could develop some sort of complex table of ability modifiers due to age, and knock down the older character but give him more skills, etc etc. But then you're not playing with a system as simple as 5e. It's a tradeoff.
But it's just the things to consider when people decide what their groups should do with downtime, that's all. If you can deal with the odd questions about lazy elves and dwarves, you're good to go :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)