D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[Laurefindel]

I for one enjoy limitations in RPGs, and 5e has just the right amount of interchangeability vs restrictions for my taste.

It's the perfect LEGO kit; enough parts to deviate from the instructions, but some shapes only come in a certain colour. And a third stud would be nice on this piece but that part doesn't exist, so you have to recreate it with two pieces and accept that it will be one third-brick higher than "ideal". I enjoy the puzzle element of building characters and 5e is in my "Goldilock zone" of granularity and customization.

The only limitation I don't like, if it really is one, is absolute adherence to the archetypal "fluff" of said classes or abilities. I like using the Paladin as a frame for my ancient-magic rune warrior, or the barbarian for my elegant high-elf swordmaster from a splinter bladesigning fencing-school, scratching "rage" from my character sheet and write "fancy-elven-whazah!" instead.

 

[Helldritch]

It is actually quite easy to make a non magic wielding blade dancer elf from the barbarian. Rage becomes the number of times he can do its whirlwind blade dance where blows and cuts are deflected at the last moments. The advantage giving thing could be seen as something like "forcing an opening" where the blade dancer would be taking "reckless" chances to strike true. Renaming the totems to an elven flavor would work too. In essence you have all the mechanics of the barbarian but with different names. And instead of athletics checks never under the strength score why not put Acrobatic checks that never falls under the dexterity score?

For the rune warrior, I would prefer to use the Eldritch Knight but to each his own

What I love about 5ed is that you have all the tools to adapt to cool concept without creating anything totally new. You want to have a Lawfull Good assassin? Easy, call that assassin a spy in the service of his/her king/queen. Long live the King/Queen! What is your name good sir? Call me TwoEggs. James TwoEggs!

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Creating the class identity "Eldritch Knights don't study magic, they just study how to cast it." Which is an odd distinction to make, IMO. If they were charisma-based I could see the argument.

 

[Lanefan]

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

What's the point of classes if there's nothing unique about any of them?

Niche protection, along with the very existence of niches, is what makes a class-based system what it is. It also ensures that each character will have specific strengths and things it does well and - more important - specific weaknesses and things that it simply cannot do (or do well).

Get rid of niches and you quickly arrive at "any class can do everything", at which point you might as well scrap classes completely.

 

[Lanefan]

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
...
B. Then, in this case, there is an overlap of one (1) skill- history.

We-ell, actually there's two...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

What's the point of classes if there's nothing unique about any of them?

Niche protection, along with the very existence of niches, is what makes a class-based system what it is. It also ensures that each character will have specific strengths and things it does well and - more important - specific weaknesses and things that it simply cannot do (or do well).

Get rid of niches and you quickly arrive at "any class can do everything", at which point you might as well scrap classes completely.

simply untrue

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

simply untrue

Please explain

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mostly to make sure the character fits within the setting.

But it also allows flexibility. Rather than the DM come up with a long list of things that are and are not allowed, the player can say "can I have X", the DM then checks out X, weighs up the pros and cons and says "yay" or "neigh".

That DM would either drop that rule or never DM in our group. Full stop.
If something isn’t allowed, that needs to be made clear upfront. And it better be for a reason. 5e dnd just isn’t unbalanced to any meaningful degree.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Class skills and saving throw are class features. They help to define the class, which players are free to choose, and define the strengths and weaknesses based on choice. Class is part of the design for every edition of D&D, and always will be.

If you want to hand-pick your strengths and weaknesses becasue your character concept doesn't conform to the parameters of the game, then you're wanting to play a different game altogether. Rest assured, those games exist and are just as playable as 5e.

Ah yes, if my Paladin has acrobatics and wis and Int saves, they’re totally not a Paladin anymore. Might as well play GURPS or whatever, because all these class features that only Paladins have just don’t define the character enough to be worth using if we abandon class skills and saves!

that’s sarcasm, in case it wasn’t clear.