D&D 5E On meaningless restrictions

[FrogReaver]

So I was thinking today. What restrictions in the game could we remove because they aren't really adding anything but instead just restricting choice for no good reason.

Take for example class skills. Why not open up every character to picking any skills. What harm does that do? It certainty helps with character concept.

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.

Thoughts?

 

[atanakar]

You can do that at your table. That is the beauty of 5e. It doesn't enforce a single type of play across all groups. The main idea behind 5e is to speed up character creation to make the game accessible to more players. With 5e, D&D is an entry level game. Adding more choices makes the creation process longer. Also, restrictions are in place to block and reduce the number of abusive builds.

 

[Dausuul]

Take for example class skills. Why not open up every character to picking any skills. What harm does that do? It certainty helps with character concept.

I agree with this.

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.

Remove the dependency on Con for concentration saves (so every caster doesn't automatically pick Con), and I'd be down with this too.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can do that at your table. That is the beauty of 5e. It doesn't enforce a single type of play across all groups. The main idea behind 5e is to speed up character creation to make the game accessible to more players. With 5e, D&D is an entry level game. Adding more choices makes the creation process longer. Also, restrictions are in place to block and reduce the number of abusive builds.

What abusive builds do you forsee if the restrictions I mentioned are removed?

 

[Charlaquin]

What abusive builds do you forsee if the restrictions I mentioned are removed?

I’m generally in favor of lessening class restrictions, but to endorse Mephistopheles just a bit, I think it’s less about preventing abusive builds and more about keeping class identities separate (or “niche protection” if you prefer). YMMV on how much that matters, but I would say there comes a point where you might as well just do away with classes all together.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I'm happy with players taking any skill for their character and consider class and background skills just to be suggestions.

The way 5e handles saving throws just seems "off" to me. I liked the idea of them being attached to individual ability scores, but having "proficiency" in saving throws and how those bonuses and lack-thereof end up playing out in higher level play doesn't seem right to me. I've pondered alternatives: 1) making saving throws straight ability checks, 2) making it based on proficiency bonuses only, 3) returning to Fortitude/Reflex/Will or making it skill based and reintroducing concentration and endurance skills. Nothing quite works right for me, but the current system doesn't either

 

[HarbingerX]

Ultimately, restrictions are what give the game its shape and feel. If you have no restrictions, then it’s up to the individual table to decide what exists, what doesn’t, and how it all inter-relates. For example - does your world have chainmail wearing spellcasters? It is the things that are restricted that determine what exists.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm pretty flexible with some restrictions, but I'm pretty rigid with others. I imagine everyone behind the DM screen feels the same way.

If you want your sorcerer to be proficient with chainmail armor and thieves' tools, go for it. Tell me all about how you learned to use these things in your origin story and background, and I'll work with you.

If you want to switch out one class feature for another so that you can circumvent a particular penalty, and then combine it with a non-core Whatever to create an exploit to let you do something that normally isn't allowed, or to let you always get Advantage on etc., I've already stopped listening. The answer is going to be "No."

So I guess it depends on what you consider "meaningless."

 

[atanakar]

What abusive builds do you forsee if the restrictions I mentioned are removed?

I was talking in general terms. From a design point of view.

 

[Umbran]

Take for example class skills. Why not open up every character to picking any skills. What harm does that do? It certainty helps with character concept.

Hm. We'd want to think of this, in terms of what might happen with Expertise. You could certainly see some issues of niche protection, in which the party Rogue outdoes some other character within their own niche.