D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

The 4e DM's guide had great advice on house rules. To paraphrase it was: "Clearly Identify what it is you are trying to change with the house rule and why it needs changing. Will the house rule achieve your goal?"

Open up choices that are being restricted for no good reason.

I could be reading too much into OP's post, but it reads to me like he'd like to remove skill choice restrictions so that any class can specialize in any skill - presumably because he has a class idea that would need a different skill.

I think that's a decent summary. Though I do think toward the end you are presuming too much.

If I was a DM for a player asking this, I would instead make it an exceptional case if the player can give me a sufficiently compelling backstory to justify them being proficient with a few skills that they don't normally have. Then I'd roll it into a new background.

Why make him jump through hoops to play what he wants when you and I both know that whatever skills he ends up choosing isn't going to hurt anything.

 

[Umbran]

To be fair, this thread isn't just about class skill restrictions.

I see two camps of opposition to the idea
1. Removing any restriction is bad
2. Removing all restrictions is bad

I think you may have lost nuance.

Somewhere between removing the first restriction, and removing all restrictions, you are apt to see negative consequences. Therefore, in general, restrictions should be removed when it is fixing a particular problem seen in play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

While I see your point, I think part of the problem with 5E with such examples is expecting character concepts to be fully fleshed-out from level 1.

As for your example, there is nothing really contrived to not work in RAW. It could be accomplished with a Criminal (Spy), Courtier, and probably one or two others. Choosing variant human or half-elf for skills as well. And while you think of hims as a "fighter", at lower levels rogues "fight" just well.

A really good fit for your suggestion would be:

Urban bounty hunter grants Deception, Persuasion, and Thieves' Tools. The Ear to the Ground feature would be useful for a spy. For Fighter you choose Insight and then one other skill.

Pretty much if you are free in your choices of class/background/race, just about any concept can already be made IME. And as others have said, a good DM will always work with a player to make their character come to life.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think you may have lost nuance.

Somewhere between removing the first restriction, and removing all restrictions, you are apt to see negative consequences. Therefore, in general, restrictions should be removed when it is fixing a particular problem seen in play.

The premise here is fair. I tend to agree with it but I don't think the conclusion is necessary.

If instead it was - we need to be extremely careful about removing restrictions because doing so can lead unintentionally to very negative consequences. I unequivocally agree there.

I suppose what I'm saying though, is that in relation to this thread - any restriction removal that would lead to very negative consequences is a meaningful restriction. Which is where I believe the disconnect is?

 

[FrogReaver]

While I see your point, I think part of the problem with 5E with such examples is expecting character concepts to be fully fleshed-out from level 1.

As for your example, there is nothing really contrived to not work in RAW. It could be accomplished with a Criminal (Spy), Courtier, and probably one or two others. Choosing variant human or half-elf for skills as well. And while you think of hims as a "fighter", at lower levels rogues "fight" just well.

A really good fit for your suggestion would be:

Urban bounty hunter grants Deception, Persuasion, and Thieves' Tools. The Ear to the Ground feature would be useful for a spy. For Fighter you choose Insight and then one other skill.

Pretty much if you are free in your choices of class/background/race, just about any concept can already be made IME. And as others have said, a good DM will always work with a player to make their character come to life.

So now to play the concept I want, I must choose a particular race or get DM approval? The DM is going to approve anyways, why not just go ahead and pre-rule that it always will be?

 

[DND_Reborn]

So now to play the concept I want, I must choose a particular race or get DM approval? The DM is going to approve anyways, why not just go ahead and pre-rule that it always will be?

There is nothing to approve in this case. I gave you a background and class (which you chose) that meets the criteria for your character concept, independent of race.

If you intentionally try to come up with a wacky concept, that is different. Not everything will be approved by the DM. I've denied certain races, classes, and such in many games.

My point is that just about anything can already be made given the current system so changing it seems unnecessary. As I replied in an earlier post, other than a (very) slight nerf to Bards, allowing the other classes to choose any skill wouldn't hurt anything, either.

 

[prabe]

So now to play the concept I want, I must choose a particular race or get DM approval? The DM is going to approve anyways, why not just go ahead and pre-rule that it always will be?

Well this DM is going to ask about a backstory, because he's going to want to tie your character to the campaign and the setting, and there are a few races that don't exist and some (subclasses) the DM isn't allowing, so let's not just go ahead, eh? I mean, if you're playing in a campaign I'm running, you probably got a handout that explained some of the quirks of the setting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well this DM is going to ask about a backstory, because he's going to want to tie your character to the campaign and the setting, and there are a few races that don't exist and some (subclasses) the DM isn't allowing, so let's not just go ahead, eh? I mean, if you're playing in a campaign I'm running, you probably got a handout that explained some of the quirks of the setting.

WOW. Why are misconstruing what I am saying?

 

[DND_Reborn]

WOW. Why are misconstruing what I am saying?

I think it is a case of people responding to your response to my response, nothing more?

 

[FrogReaver]

There is nothing to approve in this case. I gave you a background and class (which you chose) that meets the criteria for your character concept, independent of race.

Apologies, I had read the part where you mentioned human race and elf race and thought it applied.

If you intentionally try to come up with a wacky concept, that is different. Not everything will be approved by the DM. I've denied certain races, classes, and such in many games.

Yes, anything can be banned from a particular campaign for setting purposes I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Do you somehow believe I'm arguing that can't be done????

My point is that just about anything can already be made given the current system so changing it seems unnecessary. As I replied in an earlier post, other than a (very) slight nerf to Bards, allowing the other classes to choose any skill wouldn't hurt anything, either.

Many things can be made under the current system. Not all. But I think your conclusion here is wrong. If nearly anything can already be made then opening up the few remaining choices that cannot will have no negative impact. What is necessary about maintaining the status quo?