D&D 5E (2014) On meaningless restrictions

[LordEntrails]

I don't see any reason to remove class skills. Given that you can RAW create a background that gives you any 2 skills you want, their is no need for changing the rules to accommodate the desire for a skill proficiency.

And, as others have said so effectively;
1) there are no meaningless restrictions, and
2) don't change things until you understand the implications and you have a clear goal in mind.

 

[FrogReaver]

I answered you. Restrictions are not meaningless from my point of view. I would not do any of the changes you propose. But go ahead and do what you want at your table.

Sorry but the following question was never answered by you.

What abusive builds do you forsee if the restrictions I mentioned are removed?

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m generally in favor of lessening class restrictions, but to endorse Mephistopheles just a bit, I think it’s less about preventing abusive builds and more about keeping class identities separate (or “niche protection” if you prefer). YMMV on how much that matters, but I would say there comes a point where you might as well just do away with classes all together.

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).

By the way, I've noticed a trend in this thread and you are guilty of it as well - where you argue against removing "meaningless restrictions" by bringing up what happens when "all restrictions, both meaningful and meaningless" are removed. I guess I just find it odd to see so many people arguing against a position that was never taken by me or anyone else in this thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

By the way, I've noticed a trend in this thread and you are guilty of it as well - where you argue against removing "meaningless restrictions" by bringing up what happens when "all restrictions, both meaningful and meaningless" are removed. I guess I just find it odd to see so many people arguing against a position that was never taken by me or anyone else in this thread.

That’s a fair critique. I imagine part of the reason you’re seeing that is that the topic is “meaningless restrictions” instead of “class skill restrictions.” The discussion of class skills in your opening post comes off as an example, rather than the core of the topic, and since everyone is going to have different opinions on what constitutes a meaningful restriction, the result where a lot of people respond “well, you need SOME restrictions!” is almost predictable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess it depends on your group and their affinity for min/maxing. Regarding skills, guess what most people will choose first once skills are FFA? Perception.

Perception is overrated IMO. I rarely choose it any more and I don't miss it at all. Sure it's important for one or 2 characters to have (especially high wisdom characters) - but I find minimal benefit from the 3rd or 4th party member having perception.

Saving throws might work well, I suppose. I guess the classes all got 1 major/minor and 1 mental 1 physical, but yeah...

IMO, saving throws currently have meaningfulness in the restriction due to concentration - but really shouldn't have that dependency in the first place.

I also don't see any reason why cleric spontaneous spellcasting should be alignment-based

No idea what this means.

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s a fair critique. I imagine part of the reason you’re seeing that is that the topic is “meaningless restrictions” instead of “class skill restrictions.” The discussion of class skills in your opening post comes off as an example, rather than the core of the topic, and since everyone is going to have different opinions on what constitutes a meaningful restriction, the result where a lot of people respond “well, you need SOME restrictions!” is almost predictable.

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've seen both argued here. So to those in camp 1: What makes removing a restriction like class skill restrictions bad?

For those in camp 2 (a camp I'm myself in): Why aren't you mentioning that some restrictions can be removed without issue?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I generally don't remove restrictions overall, but I do ease up on a lot of them. This has a lot to do with having players I trust to not ruin the game with their OP build. Because I know these people and I know they wouldn't do it on purpose and would work with me to fix it if it did become a problem.

For class skills: yeah, sure, whatever. I don't see the niche protection argument as having much weight once you're looking at a specific, normal-sized group of players. So long as you're not stepping on another player's toes, it's cool.

In an open table type of game (AL, or just a large shared game) I'd take a very different tack: character creation as strict RAW, both to protect niches and avoid confusion.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

You can already by core RAW effectively take any starting skills you want in almost every instance.

1) Background skills are officially just suggestions. By RAW you need DM permission to play a half-elf, but you don't need DM permission to take any 2 skills you want (and otherwise customize every part of your background other than making up a new background Feature). If you don't have Perception, it's because there were at least 2 other skills not on your class skill list you wanted more.

2) Class skills lists are rather generous. Really, the only ways they should be a problem at all is if you are ignoring RAW on #1, or you are making a character that is taking all skills that are weird for their class. I suppose if you were leveling dipping at 1st for mechanical reasons and your class concept was based more on your second class, that might possibly come up.

You can almost always just pick the starting skills you want from the whole list, without looking at the class list, and then go back and look at the class list and see that your build is valid. I have never seen a character not get exactly the skills they want RAW. So sure, maybe that's a reason to remove the rule--since it basically almost never comes up. I expect it's there to help new players.

So I see about 2 situations where there is an actual limitation. If you aren't playing by RAW and can't pick whatever skills you want for your background (way too many people miss that rule for some reason--it seems like more people miss it than know it!), or if you are mechanically dipping first level in a class themed completely incompatibly with you character concept.

So here's a challenge for anyone: Think of 5 or 10 character concepts you or a friend might want to play who wasn't trying to make this not work, write down which starting skills you want them to have, and then crack open the book and see how many of those characters aren't completely legal already. I'm guessing that you'll get all legal options unless you are intentionally trying to make a non-legal character (and depending on your memory of the books, you might still make a legal character when you're trying not to!)

 

[FrogReaver]

I find that a lot of things my table does not do, others would do regularly. Tracking things like arrows and components does not get done along with food and water unless it becomes important or the game moves to a desert or something.

I typically ignore those things as well.

I don't think we should do away with classes or races over just having a list of things you pick from.

I don't either. I'm glad that settled.

Character concept is good, but if I want to pick a elf to play I should accept their restrictions and not want him to have +2 strength and be able to reroll 1s.

Racial benefits are either genetic, cultural or a combination of both.

If they are viewed as genetic then they should not be open to choice - and maintaining that restriction is not meaningless because it's being to correspond to the fiction.

If they are viewed entirely as cultural then they should be open to choice - an elf could be raised by half-orcs etc.

If they are a combination then we don't have enough information to separate what is genetic and what is cultural and so the best answer would be either a case by case basis or to just treat them all as if they are genetic.

IMO, Race restrictions really depend on the source of the restriction and being true to that source - which may mean you keep the restrictions or that you don't.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So I was thinking today. What restrictions in the game could we remove because they aren't really adding anything but instead just restricting choice for no good reason.

Take for example class skills. Why not open up every character to picking any skills. What harm does that do? It certainty helps with character concept.

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?

I'll forego the general discussion and just address these:

"What restrictions in the game could we remove because they aren't really adding anything but instead just restricting choice for no good reason."

"Good reason" is entirely subjective of course. What might be a great reason to one player is complete and useless nonsense to another.

"Take for example class skills. Why not open up every character to picking any skills. What harm does that do? It certainty helps with character concept."

Now, this is just my take of course. Class skills are selected because they represent the skills accessible to the character in the course of acquiring the rest of their features associated with their class. Background skills are separate because they represent the skills learned earlier in life. Usually, if a particular skill is desired, choosing an appropriate background will grant it. I've yet to encounter a class/background combination that didn't lend itself to a particular character concept.

Given how 5E is not an a-la-carte system, I personally have no issue with the system as is. Would it hurt anything? Well, not much at all really except for Bards. One of their unique features is that they can choose any skill. It is a minor there, but there you go.

"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."

The same idea holds for saving throws with the class granting the features. The only strange thing about saves is some classes have saves which will follow their strengths (such as a Barbarian--likely high STR and CON--gaining proficiency in STR & CON saves) while others might only have one (such as Monk--likely high DEX and WIS, but STR & DEX saves). Personally, I like having proficiency in saves where my abilities aren't as likely to be high, to balance things out.

The choice of one strong save and one weak one is fine, of course, and I don't think it would hurt much of anything. We have toyed with the idea at our table, but found 90% of the time the choices would just have been the default anyway. One option I thought about was offering a strong save and two weak saves or two strong saves.

Other than the aforementioned Bard and have any skills, the options you purpose wouldn't hurt much of anything IMO. I agree with many that much of the skill choices would likely be the same as a skill list or background anyway but allowing it should be fine.