On meaningless restrictions

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
While I'm fully in favor of a class based system I am fully against niche protected class systems.
No worries. I have trouble understanding why someone would want a class-bases system (other than for legacy reasons) unless they were looking for at least a bit of niche protection.

Class-based systems provide two benefits over a gestalt system:

1. It's easier for beginner to grok. "Ima play a fighter. Hit stuff." Or, "Ima play a wizard. Pew pew pew." This is easier than building up custom characters from point-buying abilities, spells, and skills, Buying off the rack has its advantages. :)

2. It allows for a constellation of abilities that provide for some degree of specialization/niche protection for a class. Whether it's very granular (only thieves can detect traps, only assassins can use poison, only monks can kung fu, only paladins can annoy the heck out of you) or very meta (fighter hit stuff good and get hit, wizards cast big boom), that's what the class system traditionally does, IMO.


5e is good at (1), not so good at (2). Whether that's a feature or a bug ... eh, who knows.
 
So let's say I give my justification. What might cause you deny it other than one of the reasons I listed?
1) the justification allows for invasion of the niche of another player's character that has it mors tied to them and the game only allows for few rolls of it.
2) The justification is not setting appropriate

That's really the only reason why I'd deny a proficiency choice.
 

HarbingerX

Rob Of The North
While I'm fully in favor of a class based system I am fully against niche protected class systems.
Which explains why you see class skill restrictions as being meaningless. You don't like niche protection, which is what it enforces for inexperienced players. And for experienced players, they can use background customization to break out of the niche restriction.
 
1) the justification allows for invasion of the niche of another player's character that has it mors tied to them and the game only allows for few rolls of it.
2) The justification is not setting appropriate

That's really the only reason why I'd deny a proficiency choice.
So I agree with 2.

Care to respond to the counter argument I already made against 1) - that a player can already choose any 2 skills he wants with his background choice - so he's already allowed by RAW to invade another characters skill niche - which implies that invading a characters niche cannot be a reason for disallowing skill choices on a character - unless you are ignoring RAW on backgrounds?
 
Which explains why you see class skill restrictions as being meaningless. You don't like niche protection, which is what it enforces for inexperienced players. And for experienced players, they can use background customization to break out of the niche restriction.
If it did that I would find the restriction meaningful but not to my taste. But class skill restrictions actually don't accomplish what you are claiming here that they do. As you noted - backgrounds already allow the niche to be destroyed.
 

prabe

Aspiring Lurker (He/Him)
So I agree with 2.

Care to respond to the counter argument I already made against 1) - that a player can already choose any 2 skills he wants with his background choice - so he's already allowed by RAW to invade another characters skill niche - which implies that invading a characters niche cannot be a reason for disallowing skill choices on a character - unless you are ignoring RAW on backgrounds?
There's a difference between being able to choose any two skills, out of four (or five (or maybe six)) and being able to choose any four (or five (or maybe six)) skills. Some people might prefer one level of flexibility, others another. There's something to be said for only houseruling what you really thing needs to be houseruled. If you're houseruling enough other things, you might choose not to houserule this.
 
There's a difference between being able to choose any two skills, out of four (or five (or maybe six)) and being able to choose any four (or five (or maybe six)) skills. Some people might prefer one level of flexibility, others another. There's something to be said for only houseruling what you really thing needs to be houseruled. If you're houseruling enough other things, you might choose not to houserule this.
My threads on game design aren't just about houseruling.
 

prabe

Aspiring Lurker (He/Him)
There's a difference between being able to choose any two skills, out of four (or five (or maybe six)) and being able to choose any four (or five (or maybe six)) skills. Some people might prefer one level of flexibility, others another.
 
So I agree with 2.

Care to respond to the counter argument I already made against 1) - that a player can already choose any 2 skills he wants with his background choice - so he's already allowed by RAW to invade another characters skill niche - which implies that invading a characters niche cannot be a reason for disallowing skill choices on a character - unless you are ignoring RAW on backgrounds?
The niches are more than 2 skills. Taking Stealth and Sleight of Hand on your wizard doesn't invalidate the rogue's niche. Taking Acrobatics, Stealth, SoH, Perception and theives tools when your party already has a rogue is seriously stepping on toes.
 
There's a difference between being able to choose any two skills, out of four (or five (or maybe six)) and being able to choose any four (or five (or maybe six)) skills. Some people might prefer one level of flexibility, others another.
But there's not a lot of difference between getting to pick 2 of any skill and also pick 2 skills out of a list 6 or so AND between getting to pick 4 out of any skill.
 
The niches are more than 2 skills. Taking Stealth and Sleight of Hand on your wizard doesn't invalidate the rogue's niche. Taking Acrobatics, Stealth, SoH, Perception and theives tools when your party already has a rogue is seriously stepping on toes.
Just curious. If 2 players want to play rouges with the skills you listed - do you allow that?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
But there's not a lot of difference between getting to pick 2 of any skill and also pick 2 skills out of a list 6 or so AND between getting to pick 4 out of any skill.
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.
 
Just curious. If 2 players want to play rouges with the skills you listed - do you allow that?
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.
 

Advertisement

Top