D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
That's a reasonable approach. I'd say that defining class skills still serves a purpose, and that even with backgrounds you're still probably not going to get a lot of skills that aren't on your class list (barring the Skilled Feat, which if you want it that badly then you can have it).

Curious what purpose you see in it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I’ve done no such thing, and it is extremely rude to put words in someone’s mouth, so please refrain from that.

I proposed a compromise. There is no actual need for even a level 5 flight restriction, but I’d be willing to accept it for the sake of people who really hate low level flight. It would still very much be a meaningless restriction.

I apologize. May I offer a suggestion for future discussion. The first time someone "puts words in your mouth" it's because they legitimately thought that is what you meant. So clarify and then if they insist that's what you said then at that point it becomes extremely rude that they are talking past you.

We all could yell at each other for putting words in each others mouths. One must attempt to judge the intent.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
Just a fun reminder for everyone.

Your DM may not be aware of this, or you may not be aware as a DM, but the actual rules as written of 5e backgrounds are that the player (not the DM, the player) makes or chooses a background. DM input is required only in oversight (does this fit the campaign, etc), and in making any new background feature.

By the RAW, you can simply pick 2 skills, 2 of some combo of languages and tools, a set of starting equipment in line with the phb example backgrounds, and a either choose or work with the DM to create a background feature.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I apologize. May I offer a suggestion for future discussion. The first time someone "puts words in your mouth" it's because they legitimately thought that is what you meant. So clarify and then if they insist that's what you said then at that point it becomes extremely rude that they are talking past you.

We all could yell at each other for putting words in each others mouths. One must attempt to judge the intent.

Asking you to refrain from something isn’t yelling at you.

I also provided a clarification of what I actually said. 🤷‍♂️
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
@FrogReaver

aside from whether flight is a big deal, part of the point is that “no flying creatures until a certain level” and “specifically not until this level” are essentially two different restrictions, that do two different things.

even if we accept that it’s good to level fate movement types in order to space outhow much power is gained all at once, gating flight to a level higher than 5 would still be a meaningless restriction, in that context.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Just a fun reminder for everyone.

Your DM may not be aware of this, or you may not be aware as a DM, but the actual rules as written of 5e backgrounds are that the player (not the DM, the player) makes or chooses a background. DM input is required only in oversight (does this fit the campaign, etc), and in making any new background feature.

By the RAW, you can simply pick 2 skills, 2 of some combo of languages and tools, a set of starting equipment in line with the phb example backgrounds, and a either choose or work with the DM to create a background feature.

And I tell the players that I want to know what their background is (and their backstory), and that I will help them work something out if they want. So far, it hasn't been a problem.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
@FrogReaver

aside from whether flight is a big deal, part of the point is that “no flying creatures until a certain level” and “specifically not until this level” are essentially two different restrictions, that do two different things.

even if we accept that it’s good to level fate movement types in order to space outhow much power is gained all at once, gating flight to a level higher than 5 would still be a meaningless restriction, in that context.

Right, I agree.

There is one other consideration to the equation that isn't mentioned here. When the restriction is in place due to power then the whole power package must be accounted for as a whole and not just ability a allows flight and ability b does so they both should be the same level. That said in this particular case the druid isn't more powerful than the wizard even with level 5 flight through wildshape. But in other situations that could have changed the conclusion.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Curious what purpose you see in it?

If we're going to have classes, demarcating their boundaries is part of that. Sure, not every character of a certain class is going to have the exact same skills (even aside from backgrounds), but if classes are types (and there's at least an argument they are) then certain skills are, well, typical.

Someone earlier (I think) also said something about the limitations making it easier for beginning players to build a character, and there seems to be some wisdom there. Even that aside, some people find inspiration more in limitations than in ... the opposite. It's like a drummer choosing not to have any cymbals on their kit, or a music producer choosing to record on tape rather than a computer (differences in sound aside in the latter).

Also, if certain skills go with certain classes, it serves a purpose similar to niche-protection, in that it gives all the classes something out-of-combat to be good at, or at least do (and I believe characters should have something to do in-combat and out-of-combat). I think is also makes the classes a little more coherent.

With the flexibility in backgrounds, you can make a character with at least one idiosyncratic skill easily enough; two if you go completely free-form. It's not so limiting that I at least feel straghitjacketed. Obviously, experiences differ.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Can you explain why you feel skill restrictions are meaningless? I'd actually say that they lose meaning if you remove the restriction, as then any class build can be good in any skill.

Yes. Skill restrictions are meaningless because there is no benefit to restricting the skill choices based on class. There is no power based reason to disallow, there is no thematic based reason to disallow. There is a benefit to allowing the other (non-skill) choices based on class.

And I'd generally make a player justify a change to the rules because in my experience the reason they are asking is to overpower their character build compared to other players.

I think the best stance is that it should depend on the scope and type of thing in question of being changed
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top