D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[Helldritch]

I am at the absolute opposite of this thread. I think that in 5ed they went way overboard in the removal of many restrictions. If you want a game where you decide exactly what your class is, go to GURPS! You could litteraly build your class from the ground up.

In my heart, D&D is a game of high fantasy where the heroes try their best to help save the weak and innocents from the evil that abound. They try to do it with their strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

The removal of some limitations allow for some really strong power gaming. Want a mage in full plate? Roll for fighter, do Eldritch Knight then switch to mage. If you don't mind loosing one ASI then 3 levels in the fighter is enough and once you're level 20 you have access to level 9 spells anyways. And you are in full plate with shield! This is nothing to sneeze at. In previous editions you had to keep your multiclassing within two levels of each other save for your prefered racial class. This was meant to prevent the multiple class dipping we see in some games. Some people are shocked when I say that I allow only one switch per characters. No back and forth. When you abandon a class, it is for good. With the many restrictions I am applying, I do not have troubles with any feats, even the combo of GWM and PM; simply because I stop the power gamers in their tracks.

Giving other examples would make me write a whole book but I do apply quite a few restrictions and it works out quite fine. For the moments, the few restrictions that we have in 5ed are a necessity. We have more than enough possibilities to make any concept doable.

 

[aco175]

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I tend to agree on the magic school restrictions of AT and EK. I find the movement limit on wild shape serves a purpose.

I disagree. The movement restriction makes the Druid feel weird and arbitrary as hell, especially the swim speed restriction.

Even for flying, it’s weird. Turning into a bird isn’t the same as gaining flight.
At most, it should be gates behind level 5, when wizards can get Fly.

 

[Minigiant]

Well some of the class skill, weapon, armor, and tool proficiency class choices were to do bit of niche protection. To get certain ones, you had to "sacrifice" a race, subrace, background, class, or subclass to get it. It minor since you have so many ways to get it but the idea was that something had to give.

Freewheeling could be a problem in bigger groups in overshadowing. But that is easily fixed with communication.

 

[Thurmas]

Metal Armor for druids. Remove the wording or at least clear it up.
Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights: Remove spell school restrictions.
Racial Ability modifiers. Give each class floating modifiers, either a +2 and a +1. or +2 and a +2, or +2/+1/+1. What ever balances the class given the other racial abilities they have. But make it so a race isn't punished for wanting to go a specific class. It works great for variant human, half elf and Warforged.
Cleric: Choose when you hit level 8 which of the two divine strikes you want. The Variant Options UA goes a bit toward fixing this.

 

[cbwjm]

Movement limit on wildshape and magic school restrictions for AT and EK.

I'm not too fond of those movement restrictions either. What I have done is limit the CR of the creatures that the druid can shapeshift into to CR 0 creatures initially. A level 2 druid can shapeshift into a sparrow but has to wait until a higher level to shapeshift into something more powerful with a flight speed. I might change this later and just remove the restrictions altogether.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

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.

I agree about skills, but doing the same with saving throws would open a huge avenue for making some classes stronger than intended, in my opinion, by offsetting what would be generally their weak spots.

The example of casters and the concentration mechanic was mentioned in an earlier post, and we can also think about the barbarian: high Constitution/Strength scores is the rule, highest hit points overall, and danger sense beginning at 2nd level. Those are all built upon the core barbarian. Allowing a player to avoid psychic damage/mind-affecting spells by becoming proficient in Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws would remove what's maybe the sole defensive weak spot of a barbarian.

So, I have no problem letting players choose whatever skills they think better reflect the kind of character they want to play, but I wouldn't do the same with saving throws, because I believe they're part of a set of defensive skills in each class, and this is not something I'm willing to change without reviewing other class features as well.

 

[MoonSong]

I agree about skills, but doing the same with saving throws would open a huge avenue for making some classes stronger than intended, in my opinion, by offsetting what would be generally their weak spots.

The example of casters and the concentration mechanic was mentioned in an earlier post, and we can also think about the barbarian: high Constitution/Strength scores is the rule, highest hit points overall, and danger sense beginning at 2nd level. Those are all built upon the core barbarian. Allowing a player to avoid psychic damage/mind-affecting spells by becoming proficient in Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws would remove what's maybe the sole defensive weak spot of a barbarian.

So, I have no problem letting players choose whatever skills they think better reflect the kind of character they want to play, but I wouldn't do the same with saving throws, because I believe they're part of a set of defensive skills in each class, and this is not something I'm willing to change without reviewing other class features as well.

Not to mention that CON saves proficiency is about the only thing low level sorcerers have over wizards.

 

[Umbran]

Backgrounds rules allow you to become proficient in virtually any skill
There are races that get an extra skill of your choice
There is a feat that allows you to take any 3 skills you want
There is also a feat that allows for expertise

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the rogue can already be better than anyone else at whatever skill he wants.

But, in each of those cases, that ability is tied to a package - a race, a feat, a background.

This is, in fact, a major point of having classes at all. You don't get to take arbitrary combinations of powers - you take them in bundles. You don't, in general, get to have everything you do want, and nothing you don't want.

While, I recognize that to many folks this is a bug, as a general design approach, it is a feature in maintaining balance and niches. You don't have to know ahead of time a single specific horrible failure mode to balk at breaking a general design feature.

Broadly, if you allow anyone to take any skill, you are strengthening classes that currently have limited lists, and weakening classes that have broad lists.

And, say you do that again for weapon proficiencies - again, relatively speaking, you are giving some classes a boost, and other classes are getting tweaked downwards.

And, in every step where you remove a current restriction, you are apt to be doing this - giving a boost to some, and depressing others. No single step of these is apt to be so horribly game-breaking as to make anyone recoil in horror, but as you add these together, the results are not apt to be terribly predictable. The law of unintended consequences becomes more likely with each step.

So, the question to ask is whether you are actually solving a problem with each such restriction removal. Make sure that the problem is worth the possible unintended consequences.

 

[Celebrim]

It's a social game played by several people at the same time. Different classes having different defined roles allows groups to play together in a functional manner with minimal coordination, ensuring that each character is likely to have a different concept and shine in different areas, thereby forming a group that is stronger than the individual parts.

If you removed the "unnecessary" restrictions that differentiated the classes, then you'd create an incoherent design that pitted individual optimization against party dynamics. Almost invariably there are different choices that are just straight up better than other options. With complete freedom of choice, you'd be under pressure to choose the most obvious choices - the skills, saving throws, etc. that were most likely to be beneficial to you. This pressure would be in tension with your role in a party. By giving different archetypes different areas of weakness and strength, this tension is removed and the overall game improved.