5E On meaningless restrictions

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

It's nothing to do with balance. It's all about does the character fit the story. D&D is a story telling game. If a player can come up with a good story to explain why a sentient construct is hunting monsters for the Harpers in the Forgotten Realms they deserve to be rewarded.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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.

I love sarcasm! Here's another game I like to play called Further Down The Rabbit Hole!...

DM: (responding to your circus paladin) Ok, you can take background <x> or <y> to get Acrobatics. At least that gives a bit of an idea why your paladin is different. And I guess the saves won't hurt anything...

Player 2: Oh! We can do that? Then I want to have Stealth and Thievery for my cleric, and add Dex saves too.

Player 3: Hey! I'm playing a rogue here! What if I trade backstab for cleric spells instead? Wait.. can I do that?

DM: Umm...

Player 4: Well, I`m changing my fighter to a paladin now so I can get spells, but I want her to have the same Fighter skills. She's basically a righteous fighter with divine powers.

DM: So, a Paladin?

Player 4: No, a Fighter! But I want to use the paladin class.

DM: <leaves>

 

[jasper]

I love sarcasm! Here's another game I like to play called Further Down The Rabbit Hole!...

DM: (responding to your circus paladin) Ok, you can take background <x> or <y> to get Acrobatics. At least that gives a bit of an idea why you're paladin is different. And I guess the saves won't hurt anything...

Player 2: Oh! We can do that? Then I want to have Stealth and Thievery for my cleric, and add Dex saves too.

Player 3: Hey! I'm playing a rogue here! What if I trade backstab for cleric spells instead? Wait.. can I do that?

DM: Umm...

Player 4: Well, I`m changing my fighter to a paladin now so I can get spells, but I want her to have the same Fighter skills. She's basically a righteous fighter with divine powers?

DM: So, a Paladin?

Player 4: No, a Fighter! But I want to use the paladin class.

DM: <leaves>

Jasper formerly player 4. I told you guys Jacob was up to the job as a dm. Now we have find another sucke..... DM.
Player 1. But we are banned from all game stores in the states! :0
***
As a lot of people have put it. D&D is created with niche protection for your class. You may change at little with no problem. But change a lot just, sigh, please go play another game system.

 

[Coroc]

.....You may change at little with no problem. But change a lot just, .....

Like MC for pure mechanical reasons without RP background?
Or wanting weird races / classes integrated in every single setting and with official confirmation?

Just rhetoric, no one please answer.

 

[HarbingerX]

Just rhetoric, no one please answer.

raging comment.
disparaging comment questioning poster's intelligence.
comment about how obviously I'm right.

Only recently returned to EnWorld and it's discouraging how frequently discussions go this way. I have sympathy for the moderators.

 

[Fenris-77]

I really don't get why people are upset about this. The game is specifically designed to be "use what you want" and there are classless rulesets available if you want to go heavy in that direction (although I have no idea how good they are). Or keep it PHB and heavy niche protection. Whatever works for your table. It's not more or less D&D because of that choice, at that point it's your D&D. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I wouldn't hamper anyone on that basis. The rogue gets to differentiate himself in shared skills with expertise. With as few skills as 5e has, overlap is going to happen and I'm not going to step in for such a flimsy reason. Nobody in my game has dibs on any skills.

 

[billd91]

I really don't get why people are upset about this. The game is specifically designed to be "use what you want" and there are classless rulesets available if you want to go heavy in that direction (although I have no idea how good they are). Or keep it PHB and heavy niche protection. Whatever works for your table. It's not more or less D&D because of that choice, at that point it's your D&D. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I don't think anyone's really disputing that people can house rule anything they want. But, honestly, the OP kind of set himself up for complaints since it's pretty clear that class skills and saves aren't really meaningless. They help define the character of the class. The background is intended to give players a chance to inject additional, personal character concept aspects that aren't tied to the class.

Of course, I think the easiest way to handle it isn't to strip the classes of parts that define them - it's done through other choices. Want a better Dex save than a cleric typically gets? Put one of your higher stats in Dex. Take the Resilient feat for it (you not only get the save as a proficient one, you get +1 Dex). Want to add non-class-based skills? Take the Skilled feat. If the concept is that important, surely it can wait a few levels and take up a feat slot.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think anyone's really disputing that people can house rule anything they want. But, honestly, the OP kind of set himself up for complaints since it's pretty clear that class skills and saves aren't really meaningless. They help define the character of the class. The background is intended to give players a chance to inject additional, personal character concept aspects that aren't tied to the class.

Of course, I think the easiest way to handle it isn't to strip the classes of parts that define them - it's done through other choices. Want a better Dex save than a cleric typically gets? Put one of your higher stats in Dex. Take the Resilient feat for it (you not only get the save as a proficient one, you get +1 Dex). Want to add non-class-based skills? Take the Skilled feat. If the concept is that important, surely it can wait a few levels and take up a feat slot.

I think saves matter much more than skills do. Even though backgrounds are outside of class, the fact that you can get any two skills you want shows that skill niche isn't very much of a thing. If it was, they would protect it better like saves. Spending a feat to get one additional save proficiency is a large investment. Taking a background is not.

 

[Fenris-77]

I do happen to think that class skills are pretty meaningless. I don't think they do anything to define the class when it's already possible to take almost any combination of skills already.

 

[Minigiant]

I wouldn't hamper anyone on that basis. The rogue gets to differentiate himself in shared skills with expertise. With as few skills as 5e has, overlap is going to happen and I'm not going to step in for such a flimsy reason. Nobody in my game has dibs on any skills.

The point is the two players would have to deal with it.

If they refused then I as the DM would intervene and favor the one who followed the core rules and setting rules closer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I love sarcasm! Here's another game I like to play called Further Down The Rabbit Hole!...

DM: (responding to your circus paladin) Ok, you can take background <x> or <y> to get Acrobatics. At least that gives a bit of an idea why you're paladin is different. And I guess the saves won't hurt anything...

Player 2: Oh! We can do that? Then I want to have Stealth and Thievery for my cleric, and add Dex saves too.

Player 3: Hey! I'm playing a rogue here! What if I trade backstab for cleric spells instead? Wait.. can I do that?

DM: Umm...

Player 4: Well, I`m changing my fighter to a paladin now so I can get spells, but I want her to have the same Fighter skills. She's basically a righteous fighter with divine powers?

DM: So, a Paladin?

Player 4: No, a Fighter! But I want to use the paladin class.

DM: <leaves>

Nah, this sort of slippery slope stuff isn’t convincing.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I really don't get why people are upset about this. The game is specifically designed to be "use what you want" and there are classless rulesets available if you want to go heavy in that direction (although I have no idea how good they are). Or keep it PHB and heavy niche protection. Whatever works for your table. It's not more or less D&D because of that choice, at that point it's your D&D. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

But other people might be having fun wrong the wrong way!

 

[Coroc]

raging comment.
disparaging comment questioning poster's intelligence.
comment about how obviously I'm right.

Only recently returned to EnWorld and it's discouraging how frequently discussions go this way. I have sympathy for the moderators.

Do not take it to serious it is just a game, and every one has his own expectations and of course there is no bad wrong fun.