D&D 5E (2014) On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

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.

That sounds a lot like restriction for restrictions sake.

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).

I don't fully disagree with this, but I disagree with the conclusion because it's a matter of degree. Choose 2 of 8 skills vs choose 2 of 18 is not really the kind of limitation that is really going to benefit a beginning player IMO.

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.

There's already too much overlap in skills and backgrounds and racial skills to really believe this kind of niche protection exists in 5e. If 5e had even greater restrictions on skills then this would be a viable reason to not remove the restriction IMO.

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.

I don't feel straightjacketed either. However, there's times when I can't take one of the skills I want to take on the character I want to make. I usually can find a substitute that still allows me to play some version of the character I had in mind, but I see no compelling reason that i should have to do that.

 

[prabe]

That sounds a lot like restriction per restrictions sake.

It's more a matter that I'm playing a game with classes. I've played and enjoyed games that didn't have classes, and I've played and enjoyed games that were more in the middle than even 5E is. I've homebrewed systems to make other skill systems more flexible. Then again, at this point I'm apparently more willing to embrace limitations than you are.

I don't fully disagree with this, but I disagree with the conclusion because it's a matter of degree. Choose 2 of 8 skills vs choose 2 of 18 is not really the kind of limitation that is really going to benefit a beginning player IMO.

I think smaller lists are less intimidating to people who aren't used to TRPGs. It's kinda like going to a restaurant where the menu has 7 items, compared to a place where the menu has 40. Sure, if you know the restaurant (or at least the cuisine) you probably know what you want before you go in, but someone completely new to it can easily be overwhelmed.

There's already too much overlap in skills and backgrounds and racial skills to really believe this kind of niche protection exists in 5e. If 5e had even greater restrictions on skills then this would be a viable reason to not remove the restriction IMO.

But the overlap isn't total. I'm someone who likes skillhound characters, and I've homebrewed stuff to my taste in other systems, and I don't see the value of removing this particular restriction in this particular system.

I've also had some bad experiences with players who wanted minor exceptions carved out in the rules that later turned out to be chasms laden with exploits.

I don't feel straightjacketed either. However, there's times when I can't take one of the skills I want to take on the character I want to make. I usually can find a substitute that still allows me to play some version of the character I had in mind, but I see no compelling reason that i should have to do that.

And I have a character in my head, who uses the Bard class mechanics and isn't a performer (trades out the instrument proficiencies for tool proficiencies, for reasons that make sense given his backstory). I don't think it's all that uncommon for people who spend enough time thinking about a given game to end up with character ideas that push the limits of the rules a little. If your idea for the character goes beyond the flexibility in RAW, remembering what someone said upthread about the concept maybe needing some levels, talk to your GM.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@FrogReaver ,

Since skills are no longer restricted by class, and you can usually get other skills via background and race, there really ins't any purpose in the restriction other than to help define roles via class. If something like Thieves' Tools was only available to rogues and maybe bards, such restrictions would serve a purpose, however misguided.

Barring the argument for role-assistance, the designers in 5E realized that really any character, regardless of class, could have the potential to learn any skill. IMO this is why backgrounds were put into play, to give players that choices. Thus, you can have a character who isn't a rogue, but knows how to use Thieves' Tools.

EDIT: toss in skills and tools gained via subclasses, and the Skilled and Prodigy feats, and it becomes even easier to get access to skills or tools you really want eventually--even if you don't get them at level 1.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Sure. And dropping the restriction altogether would be a (totally fine) power boost for the Druid over the Wizard if the Druid could cast in wild shape form. Awfully easy to duck in and out of total cover as a sparrow, after all. But when you have to drop wildshape to cast a spell, that is no longer nearly as powerful.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

Disagree. Class based skill restrictions exist because they help define the class archtype or stereotype.

I understand that some people can envision a character with a class that does not fit that stereotype, but the type is there for a reason.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Disagree. Class based skill restrictions exist because they help define the class archtype or stereotype.

I understand that some people can envision a character with a class that does not fit that stereotype, but the type is there for a reason.

The archetype can be modeled without skill restrictions. The only role skills play there is ensuring that each class has access to the skills relevant to their archetypes, which is accomplished just fine by allowing anyone to take any skills.

the single valid purpose of class restrictions is to simplify character creation by making sure that classes that have to pick several spells at level 1, and/or other class features, don’t also have to pick 3-4 skills from the entire skill list. The bard goes hard on making you pick stuff early on, but it’s the exception.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Disagree. Class based skill restrictions exist because they help define the class archtype or stereotype.

I understand that some people can envision a character with a class that does not fit that stereotype, but the type is there for a reason.

The thing is: what is the reason, and is it a good enough reason to justify not allowing players to pick whatever skills they like for all their skill choices? (rather than pick whatever you want for two and then two off this list)

I believe upthread someone argued that the class archtypes help new players not get confused about what to do. I'm not sure this works (because they still have the full list for half of their choices anyways) I can definitely agree that there are potentially mechanically bad skill choices, but those are still on several class skill lists, so the restriction isn't helping there.

The second question about the reason being good enough is, of course, subjective.

 

[Monayuris]

I agree with class restrictions and I think 5E is way too lenient, in this regard.

If I choose to play a wizard, part of that choice is expecting to be an expert on magical knowledge and maybe even history. I expect to be the one the group turns to in those matters

When a rogue with expertise or even an high Int Barbarian can know as much or more about magic as I can, it kind of removes that expectation.

 

[Lanefan]

Niche protection is an important concept IMO. However, skill restriction doesn't add any Niche protection because there's already a RAW way to get any 2 skills you desire on a character (using background rules).

So maybe in the interests of niche protection (and, yes, somewhat against the intent of this thread) the idea of background giving you two extra skills needs to be shut down?

 

[FrogReaver]

So maybe in the interests of niche protection (and, yes, somewhat against the intent of this thread) the idea of background giving you two extra skills needs to be shut down?

Not the route I would prefer but it would be a defensible position.