D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

I feel kinda funny about this, and @lowkey13 can correct me if I'm wrong, here, but I suspect the meaning is that 5E doesn't have sharp-enough boundaries between the classes; there isn't enough specific to one class that the other classes cannot acquire; that making one character choice does not do enough to foreclose others; that there are not enough restrictions on the characters.

That to me would be a particular kind of class based system - one with no overlap between what characters of different classes can do well. There's probably a good name for that kind of class based system, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

B/X or 1e.

Not completely, but pretty pretty close. Defined roles, little overlap.

Strong class system.

Role Defined! Thank you.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, I would say that the issue is twofold (going back to my original point):

1. There should be a meaningful distinction between the skills offered by various classes. For example, the skills that you get as a Wizard are (and should be) different than those you get as a Fighter, and should play into the feel of the class in a meaningful way,

2. To the extent that there isn't meaningful differentiation, that's really an issue with the "same-y" feeling that the classes often have because 5e doesn't have a strong class system.

There's really isn't such a distinction in the current game - because backgrounds eliminate any such limit. Aside form edge cases like you want a fighter who only has knowledge skills. Since you'd be limited to only three out of four (unless you get a bonus skill from race or something) you'd have to pick which broad area of knowledge you fighter skipped in favor of whatever skill you didn't actually want.

This is the main argument against the rule as a rule - it's a fine guideline, but there's no strong reason to say "fighters cannot have four knowledge skills," even if there would be a valid reason to say "fighters can't take knowledge skills." Which would require getting rid of skills from backgrounds, at least.

(Which I for one would find overly restricting in an un-fun way, since I'm personally tired of fantasy cliches while still wanting fantasy.)

 

[HarbingerX]

B/X or 1e.

Not completely, but pretty pretty close. Defined roles, little overlap.

Strong class system.

Though Elves are the original multi-class, and existed right back in OD&D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. I mean, one person might say that "Gish" is a role.

But while there is always overlap (all classes, to a greater or lesser extent, can swing some sort of melee weapon) there was a large degree of niche protection that doesn't really exist.

I'm not making a normative judgment, just saying that this is the origin of the "strong" class system. 5e has the trappings, but it's not really a strong class system.

Best name for your "strong" class system is "niche protected class system"

 

[HarbingerX]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. I mean, one person might say that "Gish" is a role.

But while there is always overlap (all classes, to a greater or lesser extent, can swing some sort of melee weapon) there was a large degree of niche protection that doesn't really exist.

I'm not making a normative judgment, just saying that this is the origin of the "strong" class system. 5e has the trappings, but it's not really a strong class system.

I totally agree. My preferred game is actually Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue. Everyone else is trying to be some mix of those. And I'd not mind just going Fighter, Wizard as fighters can be sneaky and Wizards could have the clerics divine spells if you wanted. Turn undead could become a spell.

It's very difficult in a class-based system to support all the different archetypes people can envision. So you get martial classes with a bit of magic and magic classes with a bit of martial which can all start to seems similar.

Of course, fully flexible character build systems have their own problems.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. I mean, one person might say that "Gish" is a role.

But while there is always overlap (all classes, to a greater or lesser extent, can swing some sort of melee weapon) there was a large degree of niche protection that doesn't really exist.

I'm not making a normative judgment, just saying that this is the origin of the "strong" class system. 5e has the trappings, but it's not really a strong class system.

While I'm fully in favor of a class based system I am fully against niche protected class systems.

 

[FrogReaver]

Onus
The game has a base asssumption. The side that wishes to break the base assumption therefore adds more of a responsibility or burden of proof to explain why they wish to break the assumption. TheDM has the final say but both sides have to agree or they don'tplay with each other. So..

1) The DM can resist anything. However any player can always choose not to play. A DM who have no players willing to play by their restrictions has no game to DM.

2) Part of it comes down to the game being a team game. There is a sort of heiracht of frequency that the skills are used. The designers of almost every edition more of list split them up so that a single player cannot snag all the "commonly used skills" without "sacrificing" character option to do it.

3) Again it comes down to burden of proof to break the base assumption. The fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard each have a class skill list. If someone chooses to make their wizard choose only the skills on anyther class's list that are not on the wizard's, the ball of responsibilty shifts more toward them to justify it.

So it's less why should restiction exist and more where the line of justification truly starts. For DM or player.

So let's say I give my justification. What might cause you deny it other than one of the reasons I listed?