D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

You can already by core RAW effectively take any starting skills you want in almost every instance.

1) Background skills are officially just suggestions. By RAW you need DM permission to play a half-elf, but you don't need DM permission to take any 2 skills you want (and otherwise customize every part of your background other than making up a new background Feature). If you don't have Perception, it's because there were at least 2 other skills not on your class skill list you wanted more.

2) Class skills lists are rather generous. Really, the only ways they should be a problem at all is if you are ignoring RAW on #1, or you are making a character that is taking all skills that are weird for their class. I suppose if you were leveling dipping at 1st for mechanical reasons and your class concept was based more on your second class, that might possibly come up.

You can almost always just pick the starting skills you want from the whole list, without looking at the class list, and then go back and look at the class list and see that your build is valid. I have never seen a character not get exactly the skills they want RAW. So sure, maybe that's a reason to remove the rule--since it basically almost never comes up. I expect it's there to help new players.

So I see about 2 situations where there is an actual limitation. If you aren't playing by RAW and can't pick whatever skills you want for your background (way too many people miss that rule for some reason--it seems like more people miss it than know it!), or if you are mechanically dipping first level in a class themed completely incompatibly with you character concept.

So here's a challenge for anyone: Think of 5 or 10 character concepts you or a friend might want to play who wasn't trying to make this not work, write down which starting skills you want them to have, and then crack open the book and see how many of those characters aren't completely legal already. I'm guessing that you'll get all legal options unless you are intentionally trying to make a non-legal character (and depending on your memory of the books, you might still make a legal character when you're trying not to!)

If the restriction is avoidable in practice then that's just further evidence it can be removed completely. If nothing else it allows you to pick a background based on your character rather than the skill benefits it provides you. That's a win in my book.

I think your challenge is a bit biased because we are so used to certain standard d&d characterisms that we are prone to pick skill combinations that are going to work anyways.

My first: a fighter that's a diplomatic spy. Important characteristics, talking to and reading other people to get what he wants. Being able to pick locks to see what people are hiding when he finds an opportune moment. He's a trained fighter as a last resort.

To me the most important skills for him would be:
Persuasion
Deception
Insight
Thieves Tools

And I know the accusation will be that this is a character that I designed to not work - but the thing is I can design 100's of such characters - and they are all characters I never think about because I know they won't work in the 5e system. So whatever inspiration I may have had is getting instantly filtered out.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. The movement restriction makes the Druid feel weird and arbitrary as hell, especially the swim speed restriction.

Even for flying, it’s weird. Turning into a bird isn’t the same as gaining flight.
At most, it should be gates behind level 5, when wizards can get Fly.

Something can be an arbitrary restriction from a fictional perspective and still have a reason for existing from a game balance perspective.

Consider that you've already accepted the argument on it's face by your admission that turning into a bird is okay to restrict to level 5+. Once you've done that you've accepted a purpose to such restrictions - even if you disagree about the exact level the restrictions get lifted.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't remove anything just because I saw no reason not to remove it. I would only remove something if I saw significant positive benefit in doing so.

You don't see significant benefit in allowing a character to take whatever compliment of skills works best for the character concept? I do.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a social game played by several people at the same time. Different classes having different defined roles allows groups to play together in a functional manner with minimal coordination, ensuring that each character is likely to have a different concept and shine in different areas, thereby forming a group that is stronger than the individual parts.

If you removed the "unnecessary" restrictions that differentiated the classes, then you'd create an incoherent design that pitted individual optimization against party dynamics. Almost invariably there are different choices that are just straight up better than other options. With complete freedom of choice, you'd be under pressure to choose the most obvious choices - the skills, saving throws, etc. that were most likely to be beneficial to you. This pressure would be in tension with your role in a party. By giving different archetypes different areas of weakness and strength, this tension is removed and the overall game improved.

Why are you arguing against complete freedom of choice when no one has taken the position that you should have complete freedom of choice?

 

[prabe]

You don't see significant benefit in allowing a character to take whatever compliment of skills works best for the character concept? I do.

I think that one can probably choose a background that works, and many DMs (I'm one) will work with a player to slightly alter the backgrounds in the PHB.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that one can probably choose a background that works, and many DMs (I'm one) will work with a player to slightly alter the backgrounds in the PHB.

Sure, but maybe I want to play the inept thief that turned to adventuring because he sucked as a thief. In which case my background would be thief, but I wouldn't have any skills from that background. Perhaps my real talent was patching myself up after the skirmishes (medicine) and knowing about valuable historical artifacts (history).

That is - just because it's my background that doesn't imply I was any good at the background.

 

[prabe]

Sure, but maybe I want to play the inept thief that turned to adventuring because he sucked as a thief. In which case my background would be thief, but I wouldn't have any skills from that background.

That is - just because it's my background that doesn't imply I was any good at the background.

You mean the thief background, not the thief class? Pick a different background and reskin it. There are pretty generic backgrounds for urban and rural life, at least.

 

[Celebrim]

Why are you arguing against complete freedom of choice when no one has taken the position that you should have complete freedom of choice?

I believe I said, "With complete freedom of choice, you'd be under pressure to choose the most obvious choices - the skills, saving throws..."

If the point of removing restrictions on which skills a character may have isn't to give the player complete freedom of choice to choose the skills they prefer, what is the point?

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe I said, "With complete freedom of choice, you'd be under pressure to choose the most obvious choices - the skills, saving throws..."

If the point of removing restrictions on which skills a character may have isn't to give the player complete freedom of choice to choose the skills they prefer, what is the point?

One can have complete freedom of choice in the skills they prefer and still be restricted by class and race abilities. That would only be partial freedom of choice in my book. Maybe not what you intended though?

 

[Celebrim]

One can have complete freedom of choice in the skills they prefer and still be restricted by class and race abilities.

Yes.

That would only be partial freedom of choice in my book.

No, because you just called it complete freedom of choice in your book. If it was only partial freedom of choice, why didn't you call it partial freedom of choice?

Oh?

Maybe not what you intended though?

What I intended is what I wrote. You "confusion" about it is not reasonable.