D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't.

Glad we are back to where we started

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes.
However I'd go to them an tell them that for many skills,the action can only be performed once so either they have to agree on how they will share rogue time or choose different suites of skills.

But I will likely force them to choose a few different skills either way.

So why wouldn't you tell the wizard player the same thing, assuming he is trying to take the same skills as the rogue - perhaps he wants a wizard-thief?

 

[FrogReaver]

Fighter:

Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal, Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival

Wizard:

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion

So using those two examples, we can posit the following:

A. First, it isn't quite true that you choose any two skills to start with. While there is the custom background option, most players IME choose an "off the rack" background. But, let's assume they are choosing the skills a la carte.

B. Then, in this case, there is an overlap of one (1) skill- history. That is IMO a meaningful distinction between the two classes.

YMMV. That doesn't mean your idea is bad, or that you shouldn't do away with class-based skill restrictions, but that is one example of where the skill restrictions are part of the class identity.

4 nCr 18 = 3060 total combinations of 4 skills.

There are 5 unique skills on the wizards list when compared to the fighter list. Any combination of 3 of them with 1 of any other skill the fighter cannot take. There are 150 combinations of skills the fighter cannot take that the wizard could have. There are 525 combinations of skills the wizard cannot take that the fighter can.

I should have done the math sooner. That's significant.

 

[Minigiant]

So why wouldn't you tell the wizard player the same thing, assuming he is trying to take the same skills as the rogue - perhaps he wants a wizard-thief?

I would tell wizard the same thing.

The difference is in the 2 rogue scenarios, they have equal rights. For the wizard/rogue scenario, the rogue gets first dibs on rogue skills as they are the rogue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would tell wizard the same thing.

The difference is in the 2 rogue scenarios, they have equal rights. For the wizard/rogue scenario, the rogue gets first dibs on rogue skills as they are the rogue.

That's fair. I was curious how that would be handled.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'd say that's been utterly debunked.

and I would say that's a matter of opinion.

 

[jasper]

It's baseball season.

"D&D season! " screamed Jasper as he added carrots to his hausenpepper.

 

[jasper]

...

Take for example saving throws. Why can't a player just choose 1 major (dex, con, wis) and 1 minor (str, int, cha) to be proficient in? What does that hurt? It certainly can help with character concept IMO.

Thoughts?

As Dm thank you or making the game harder for me. Running with saving throw as is, my minor Int 12+ spellcasters know to target certain classes for spells. Hmm Fighter lets hit him with a charm because Wisdom is not is best save. My major villains now have to research the pcs to target them. Gee Wally the wizard has chosen Str and con as his best saves. Frank Fighter has Wisdom and Cha as his best.
DM. "Ming the mean casts charm person on Wally."
Wally " How the beep does Ming know I weak in that area. He has never been around to spy on us."
DM pulls out the 4 sheets of notes from his campaign showing Wally where Ming's Minion watch the pcs fight, or the minions had social encounters with the pcs.
I would have to change my sign in sheet to include a row of best saves.

 

[Helldritch]

As Dm thank you or making the game harder for me. Running with saving throw as is, my minor Int 12+ spellcasters know to target certain classes for spells. Hmm Fighter lets hit him with a charm because Wisdom is not is best save. My major villains now have to research the pcs to target them. Gee Wally the wizard has chosen Str and con as his best saves. Frank Fighter has Wisdom and Cha as his best.
DM. "Ming the mean casts charm person on Wally."
Wally " How the beep does Ming know I weak in that area. He has never been around to spy on us."
DM pulls out the 4 sheets of notes from his campaign showing Wally where Ming's Minion watch the pcs fight, or the minions had social encounters with the pcs.
I would have to change my sign in sheet to include a row of best saves.

Yep, with such a variety, it would also become hard for players to target enemy with appropriate spells that would target the enemies' weaknesses.
Bob the Priest: HA! An ogre! I'll cast hold monster on it.
DM: Rolls a 13 in front of the player. He successfully saves.
Bob the Priest: No way! Ogres are weak on will saves!
DM: Not this one, Bob. Not this one...

It would require a lot of unnecessary work for the DM to apply this. And many suspicious players would want to see your notes afterwards to be sure that you the DM was not cheating to make things more... interesting?
I know that my players would like to see them for sure.

I do like that your NPCs are doing research/spying on your PCs. Just like me. What the PCs can do, so can the NPCs. Magic can come in handy, speak with dead, contact other plane to contact the souls of enemies slain by the PCs to learn about their tactics etc... Or even plain old non magical spies.

 

[Fenris-77]

Skills, I attach no class significance to them. I generally have players build by the rules but I really dont care, if they wanted a different skill to match a concept I'd say sure. Part of lack of care is how unbalanced the skill list is. I don't think a fighter taking arcana or a paladin picking locks is a big deal unless the players have no idea what one another are building, and even then, hey, build the character that gives you feels.

 

[Laurefindel]

I for one enjoy limitations in RPGs, and 5e has just the right amount of interchangeability vs restrictions for my taste.

It's the perfect LEGO kit; enough parts to deviate from the instructions, but some shapes only come in a certain colour. And a third stud would be nice on this piece but that part doesn't exist, so you have to recreate it with two pieces and accept that it will be one third-brick higher than "ideal". I enjoy the puzzle element of building characters and 5e is in my "Goldilock zone" of granularity and customization.

The only limitation I don't like, if it really is one, is absolute adherence to the archetypal "fluff" of said classes or abilities. I like using the Paladin as a frame for my ancient-magic rune warrior, or the barbarian for my elegant high-elf swordmaster from a splinter bladesigning fencing-school, scratching "rage" from my character sheet and write "fancy-elven-whazah!" instead.

 

[Helldritch]

It is actually quite easy to make a non magic wielding blade dancer elf from the barbarian. Rage becomes the number of times he can do its whirlwind blade dance where blows and cuts are deflected at the last moments. The advantage giving thing could be seen as something like "forcing an opening" where the blade dancer would be taking "reckless" chances to strike true. Renaming the totems to an elven flavor would work too. In essence you have all the mechanics of the barbarian but with different names. And instead of athletics checks never under the strength score why not put Acrobatic checks that never falls under the dexterity score?

For the rune warrior, I would prefer to use the Eldritch Knight but to each his own

What I love about 5ed is that you have all the tools to adapt to cool concept without creating anything totally new. You want to have a Lawfull Good assassin? Easy, call that assassin a spy in the service of his/her king/queen. Long live the King/Queen! What is your name good sir? Call me TwoEggs. James TwoEggs!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Fighter:

Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal, Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival

Wizard:

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion

So using those two examples, we can posit the following:

A. First, it isn't quite true that you choose any two skills to start with. While there is the custom background option, most players IME choose an "off the rack" background. But, let's assume they are choosing the skills a la carte.

B. Then, in this case, there is an overlap of one (1) skill- history. That is IMO a meaningful distinction between the two classes.

YMMV. That doesn't mean your idea is bad, or that you shouldn't do away with class-based skill restrictions, but that is one example of where the skill restrictions are part of the class identity.

Creating the class identity "Eldritch Knights don't study magic, they just study how to cast it." Which is an odd distinction to make, IMO. If they were charisma-based I could see the argument.

 

[Lanefan]

While I'm fully in favor of a class based system I am fully against niche protected class systems.

What's the point of classes if there's nothing unique about any of them?

Niche protection, along with the very existence of niches, is what makes a class-based system what it is. It also ensures that each character will have specific strengths and things it does well and - more important - specific weaknesses and things that it simply cannot do (or do well).

Get rid of niches and you quickly arrive at "any class can do everything", at which point you might as well scrap classes completely.

 

[Lanefan]

Fighter:

Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal, Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival

Wizard:

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion
...
B. Then, in this case, there is an overlap of one (1) skill- history.

We-ell, actually there's two...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

What's the point of classes if there's nothing unique about any of them?

Niche protection, along with the very existence of niches, is what makes a class-based system what it is. It also ensures that each character will have specific strengths and things it does well and - more important - specific weaknesses and things that it simply cannot do (or do well).

Get rid of niches and you quickly arrive at "any class can do everything", at which point you might as well scrap classes completely.

simply untrue

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

simply untrue

Please explain

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mostly to make sure the character fits within the setting.

But it also allows flexibility. Rather than the DM come up with a long list of things that are and are not allowed, the player can say "can I have X", the DM then checks out X, weighs up the pros and cons and says "yay" or "neigh".

That DM would either drop that rule or never DM in our group. Full stop.
If something isn’t allowed, that needs to be made clear upfront. And it better be for a reason. 5e dnd just isn’t unbalanced to any meaningful degree.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Class skills and saving throw are class features. They help to define the class, which players are free to choose, and define the strengths and weaknesses based on choice. Class is part of the design for every edition of D&D, and always will be.

If you want to hand-pick your strengths and weaknesses becasue your character concept doesn't conform to the parameters of the game, then you're wanting to play a different game altogether. Rest assured, those games exist and are just as playable as 5e.

Ah yes, if my Paladin has acrobatics and wis and Int saves, they’re totally not a Paladin anymore. Might as well play GURPS or whatever, because all these class features that only Paladins have just don’t define the character enough to be worth using if we abandon class skills and saves!

that’s sarcasm, in case it wasn’t clear.