D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[ChaosOS]

Here's another one: Weapon proficiencies. I can't think of anything that would be broken by allowing all classes to have proficiency with simple and martial weapons. Weapon-using clerics would get slightly better, but they needed the buff anyway.

Re: The dominant argument. I'm inclined to agree with the position that 5e practically doesn't have class skill proficiencies, and the existing ones mostly just guide players into the class archetypes.

Now, for weapon proficiencies, as someone who's played a weapon cleric I disagree that they "need a buff". Cleric is solidly one of the strongest if not the strongest classes in 5e, and with Spiritual Weapon can keep up with most melee characters for DPR if the days stay on the shorter side (which I find is much, much more common than days that tend long and would drain spell slots). Combine that with the cleric's utility belt massive prepared list that's not even restricted by a spellbook, and you've got a class that already threatens real melee class niches.

 

[HarbingerX]

Why make him jump through hoops to play what he wants when you and I both know that whatever skills he ends up choosing isn't going to hurt anything.

Can you explain why you feel skill restrictions are meaningless? I'd actually say that they lose meaning if you remove the restriction, as then any class build can be good in any skill.

And I'd generally make a player justify a change to the rules because in my experience the reason they are asking is to overpower their character build compared to other players.

 

[prabe]

You mentioned a non-standard idea, in some detail. Someone replied with a way to get there, making the point along the way that the concept you wanted was easy to make by RAW. You seemed to be jumping to the conclusion that the DM was going to automatically approve whatever variant you wanted to play.

 

[Beleriphon]

Many things can be made under the current system. Not all. But I think your conclusion here is wrong. If nearly anything can already be made then opening up the few remaining choices that cannot will have no negative impact. What is necessary about maintaining the status quo?

In some ways momentum from previous editions, archetype definition, and its D&D so it has class based limits on a bunch of stuff.

For skills I'd think that not much would be hurt by saying every class can pick a fixed number of skills from the whole list, with backgrounds providing fix groupings, same as racial options.

I'd say pick three skill proficiency options as a base, so in theory the minimum number would be five total. Some classes might get more slots, the rogue and the bard for example might start with six and they could have a total of eight.

 

[Prakriti]

So are people still unaware of the fact that the published Backgrounds are just suggestions and you can literally choose any two skills and two languages/tool proficiencies you want as part of your character's background? That is not some weird house-rule that requires special DM approval, that is literally straight out of the PHB.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Apologies, I had read the part where you mentioned human race and elf race and thought it applied.

Yes, anything can be banned from a particular campaign for setting purposes I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Do you somehow believe I'm arguing that can't be done????

Many things can be made under the current system. Not all. But I think your conclusion here is wrong. If nearly anything can already be made then opening up the few remaining choices that cannot will have no negative impact. What is necessary about maintaining the status quo?

No worries. My point was because of those racial choices, even more freedom exists in getting skills you want that might not fit class or background.

My second point was simply not ever player will get to play what they want every time. That's all. But it does also go back to my earlier point about many players want their concepts ready to go out-of-the-gate. IMO that is rarely the case. 3-5 levels or more make the concept, if that makes sense. With your example, a fighter/rogue MC (if allowed at the table) would make the build very easy and maybe around 4th level the character really "fits" your mold,

Since I know (I think) some of your philosophy about classes and MCing, I believe removing restrictions is fine. I just don't see the need because I have yet to see a concept that couldn't be made RAW, given the freedom others have mentioned about customizing backgrounds and such.

Still, I understand your POV. If you can already make everything even given the restrictions, why bother having them, right? As some have pointed, the skill lists are useful guidelines, if nothing else, for newer players as well. Sort of like the suggested equipment listed for each class.

 

[prabe]

So are people still unaware of the fact that the published Backgrounds are just suggestions and you can literally choose any two skills and two languages/tool proficiencies you want as part of your character's background? That is not some weird house-rule that requires special DM approval, that is literally straight out of the PHB.

Apparently some are. I prefer for backgrounds to make some sense, and generally find that twisting a background in the PHB works well enough. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Can you explain why you feel skill restrictions are meaningless? I'd actually say that they lose meaning if you remove the restriction, as then any class build can be good in any skill.

And I'd generally make a player justify a change to the rules because in my experience the reason they are asking is to overpower their character build compared to other players.

I think part of his argument is that the backgrounds system means you can pick any two skills in the game - so it's already true that any class can be good at any skill.

So restricting class skill choices isn't really preventing that. And if it's not being prevented, why have a rule in place to try to prevent it? The rule doesn't seem to be doing much else.

If I were to make the case for removing the restriction it would be this: the rule doesn't make the goal of the rule happen. So we should change something anyway: remove the ineffective rule, or change the other rule to allow the rule to be effective. I tend to err on the side of not having restrictions that aren't necessary, so that's where I'd vote, but reasonable people could argue the backgrounds should be more restricted.

 

[prabe]

I think part of his argument is that the backgrounds system means you can pick any two skills in the game - so it's already true that any class can be good at any skill.

So restricting class skill choices isn't really preventing that. And if it's not being prevented, why have a rule in place to try to prevent it? The rule doesn't seem to be doing much else.

If I were to make the case for removing the restriction it would be this: the rule doesn't make the goal of the rule happen. So we should change something anyway: remove the ineffective rule, or change the other rule to allow the rule to be effective. I tend to err on the side of not having restrictions that aren't necessary, so that's where I'd vote, but reasonable people could argue the backgrounds should be more restricted.

That's a reasonable approach. I'd say that defining class skills still serves a purpose, and that even with backgrounds you're still probably not going to get a lot of skills that aren't on your class list (barring the Skilled Feat, which if you want it that badly then you can have it).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Something can be an arbitrary restriction from a fictional perspective and still have a reason for existing from a game balance perspective.

Consider that you've already accepted the argument on it's face by your admission that turning into a bird is okay to restrict to level 5+. Once you've done that you've accepted a purpose to such restrictions - even if you disagree about the exact level the restrictions get lifted.

I’ve done no such thing, and it is extremely rude to put words in someone’s mouth, so please refrain from that.

I proposed a compromise. There is no actual need for even a level 5 flight restriction, but I’d be willing to accept it for the sake of people who really hate low level flight. It would still very much be a meaningless restriction.