My thoughts on 'niche protection'

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

But I think there's another way to go about it. Let's break it down a level; fighters get things done via physical prowess. Rogues get things done via amazing skills. Clerics get things done via divine powers. Mages get things done via arcane magic.

Now lets create a unique mechanic for each of these things. For fighters, we could have feats and access to the best weapons and armor. For rogues we have skills. For clerics we have prayers (but not vancian magic). For mages we have spells (vancian seems most likely I guess?)

This was 3rd Edition
Fighters got Bonus feats: 1 at first, 1 at every even level
Rogues got 8 Skill Points per level
Clerics and Wizards got Spells

The way you handle the problem you are facing is easy. Replace the class system with a Source / Role system. You have X Sources (for sake of argument, Martial Divine and Arcane) and Y Roles (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) and Z Backgrounds for Skills (Noble, Thief, Soldier, Priest, Outlaw, Knight). Pick one from X, Y, and Z and you are done!

 

[Arlough]

The way you handle the problem you are facing is easy. Replace the class system with a Source / Role system. You have X Sources (for sake of argument, Martial Divine and Arcane) and Y Roles (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) and Z Backgrounds for Skills (Noble, Thief, Soldier, Priest, Outlaw, Knight). Pick one from X, Y, and Z and you are done!

I was just pondering this the other day.
But, since 5e is taking the three pillars approach, you could have a character be different roles for each pillar. The classic classes could be templates placed on your characters defining how they fill those roles. So a fighter isn't "good with weapons" as much as he is someone who approaches combat in a certain way.

The reason I suggest the "class name" be a body rather than the model is that people get really upset when they feel like they have been pigeon holed into a certain name.
Example:Someone earlier mentioned that they want to be a 2 weapon character but not a ranger.
While I am against 2 weapon rangers (I think rangers should be archers, primarily, but that is just me) I have no problem making a 2 weapon ranger and playing him as a fighter. The name "Ranger" is just a keyword that tells me what powers and feats I am limited to, but it doesn't tell me that I have to play a nature loving earth-first operative. Hell, maybe my ranger is a logger or trapper, or maybe he hates nature and stays in major cities whenever he can.
But, people still have an issue where if it says Ranger it has to be either Legolas or Drizzt.
But, if you have a Martial Striker, you can then make him a Fighter as his background, or something similar.

 

[am181d]

Example:Someone earlier mentioned that they want to be a 2 weapon character but not a ranger.
While I am against 2 weapon rangers (I think rangers should be archers, primarily, but that is just me) I have no problem making a 2 weapon ranger and playing him as a fighter. The name "Ranger" is just a keyword that tells me what powers and feats I am limited to, but it doesn't tell me that I have to play a nature loving earth-first operative. Hell, maybe my ranger is a logger or trapper, or maybe he hates nature and stays in major cities whenever he can.
But, people still have an issue where if it says Ranger it has to be either Legolas or Drizzt.
But, if you have a Martial Striker, you can then make him a Fighter as his background, or something similar.

Except that the nature skills are really what define a Ranger to (most?) people and the combat styles are secondary.

There was a thread a while back where folks were talking about what they look for in a Ranger class, and the consensus seemed to be closer to "sneaky terrain-based warrior" than "archer or two-weapon warrior".

 

[Arlough]

Except that the nature skills are really what define a Ranger to (most?) people and the combat styles are secondary.

There was a thread a while back where folks were talking about what they look for in a Ranger class, and the consensus seemed to be closer to "sneaky terrain-based warrior" than "archer or two-weapon warrior".

I am just using 4e as an example, because that is what I am playing now, and therefore I don't have to go digging for my old books.
Here is the Two Weapon Fighter (Ranger) that I was talking about. Or at least one possibility for it.
[sblock]
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Asteron, level 1
Minotaur, Ranger
Build: Two-Blade Ranger
Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style
Ranger: Running Attack
Background: Athlete (+2 to Athletics)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8.


AC: 16 Fort: 15 Reflex: 14 Will: 12
HP: 28 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +7, Perception +9, Stealth +7, Athletics +10, Heal +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Endurance -1, History, Insight +2, Intimidate -1, Nature +4, Religion, Streetwise -1, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Lethal Hunter

POWERS
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Throw and Stab
Ranger encounter 1: Fox's Cunning
Ranger daily 1: Skirmishing Stance

ITEMS
Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Distance Javelin +1 (2)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
[/sblock]
And you will find there is nothing nature-y about it.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that to me, the class name doesn't define my character. A good example of that is I had a Bard long before one was released for 4th, because I just made a warlord and played him as a bard. In game, he would reference himself as a bard, and he even had a musical instrument, high Int, and light armor.

But, to many people, they would tell me that my Bard wasn't a bard. There was no bard and so I:

• should stop cheating
• was not playing it right
• needed to use the warlord picture
• would obviously not be able to contribute

Take your pick.
It had nothing to do with mechanics, it was all about nomenclature.

So if, instead of being called a Warlord, the class was called Martial Leader Enhancer then I could have put him in light armor and given him skills based on social crap and he would become a Bard without anyone complaining.

 

[Minigiant]

good stuff

I think the biggest change that 5E will do with classes is change why you choose them. The thought process will have a new order. "I am a top class warrior and prefer combat might, therefore I am a fighter. Not "I am a fighter, therefore I am a top class warrior and prefer combat might."

A class is no longer what you are. A class is how you do things. Anyone can deal high damage, only a fighter can do so with pure combat and weaponry. Wizards have to use flashy magic. Clerics have to buff an ally or debuff the target with subtle magic first. Rogue need an unfair advantage. Barbarians must rage. Paladins must smite. Etc. Etc.


Anyone can turn the king to their side. Only the wizard has strong enough magic to use only one spell and nothing else. A Cleric must buff up first. A bard wight take two casting as their spells aren't as potent. The rogue can use a skill. The Fighter can flex some muscle. Etc. Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

One interpretation of the idea of niche protection is that all classes need to have that 1 thing they are the best at. Arcane casters should be the biggest DPS machines (in 3.x) or the best 'controllers' in 4e. Fighters should be the toughest. Rogues should be the best fast talkers and sneakers. Clerics should be the best healers and buffers.

Sure.

And each class needs to have at least one significant thing it simply cannot or should not do at all. Fighters and Thieves do not cast spells. Wizard types shouldn't fight in melee. Clerics are limited by what their particular deity will stand for.

Why?

To encourage the idea of a party, and discourage one-man bands.

My take on this is that that is a bit limiting on players.

Of course it is. That's the point.

If every character could do everything it'd get pretty stale in a hurry.

I think that if you want to both play a fighter and be the best DPS guy on the team, you should have that option. It just means you obviously aren't going to be the toughest too. If you want to play a Mage but also be the best sneaker, again, you should have the option, but of course it means you won't also have the most damage output.

I think that any class a player picks should be able to be the best at just about anything (though it DOES feel weird to me that anyone besides clerics will be the best in-battle-healers, I see no reason why members of any other class can't be great out-of-battle healers if that's what their PC wants them to be able to do); it's just that going that route means that you will sacrificing in what was the traditional strength of your class.

I think it would be cool to have a party where the sneakiest guy is a cleric who worships the god of thieves, the tank is a mage with awesome robes of protection and great defensive spells, the DPS guy is a fighter who dual wields battle axes and wears lighter armor for mobility, and the leader is a rogue smooth-talker who can deceive almost any intelligent creature into falling into the party's traps and who is also the party healer via creating potions with his alchemy skills.

Under the traditional rules that party breaks all the niches and is thus mechanically punished, but I think a truly elegantly designed system allows that party to be just as viable as any other.

I think to some extent you can do this now at least in 1e if the entire group is willing to work at it, but why? Why not just play the class(es) most appropriate to what you are really trying to achieve?

Lan-"I assume DPS stands for Damage Per Swing"-efan

 

[Rhenny]

To encourage the idea of a party, and discourage one-man bands.

I'm not so sure we should have rules that make a specific "well-rounded" party the first and foremost condition for playing with other people. If players play what they want to play, and create an interesting and unique character concept, the entire party could be all fighers, or all rogues, or all wizards, or all healers of sorts.

What's most important is that players don't feel railroaded into playing a specific class because the party is lacking stealth, thievery, healing, dps, or high AC tank.

Also consider the party of 2 or party of 3. If they don't have healing or thievery, there has to be a way for one of them to pick it up if they (and the DM) want it. From what I've read about the 5e approach with themes and backgrounds, this may be possible..and I'm all for it.

In some games, I can even see non-spellcasters (who are intelligent enough or wise enough), learn limited spell casting if the story of the campaign makes it logical. The dabblers will never be as powerful as the full time mage or cleric, but they can be apprentice class (multi-class or dipping).

And for game balance? If the options are available to any PC who has the prerequisites, and they sacrifice something to gain what they want, I think it will be balanced.

Overall, PCs should be defined by how they interact with the game world, their character personalities, and their overall contributions to the party. They should not be defined solely on what they can do and can't do.

 

[MoonSong]

I am just using 4e as an example, because that is what I am playing now, and therefore I don't have to go digging for my old books.
Here is the Two Weapon Fighter (Ranger) that I was talking about. Or at least one possibility for it.
[sblock]
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Asteron, level 1
Minotaur, Ranger
Build: Two-Blade Ranger
Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style
Ranger: Running Attack
Background: Athlete (+2 to Athletics)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8.


AC: 16 Fort: 15 Reflex: 14 Will: 12
HP: 28 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Dungeoneering +7, Perception +9, Stealth +7, Athletics +10, Heal +7

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +2, Arcana, Bluff -1, Diplomacy -1, Endurance -1, History, Insight +2, Intimidate -1, Nature +4, Religion, Streetwise -1, Thievery +2

FEATS
Level 1: Lethal Hunter

POWERS
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Throw and Stab
Ranger encounter 1: Fox's Cunning
Ranger daily 1: Skirmishing Stance

ITEMS
Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Distance Javelin +1 (2)
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
[/sblock]
And you will find there is nothing nature-y about it.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that to me, the class name doesn't define my character. A good example of that is I had a Bard long before one was released for 4th, because I just made a warlord and played him as a bard. In game, he would reference himself as a bard, and he even had a musical instrument, high Int, and light armor.

But, to many people, they would tell me that my Bard wasn't a bard. There was no bard and so I:

• should stop cheating
• was not playing it right
• needed to use the warlord picture
• would obviously not be able to contribute

Take your pick.
It had nothing to do with mechanics, it was all about nomenclature.

So if, instead of being called a Warlord, the class was called Martial Leader Enhancer then I could have put him in light armor and given him skills based on social crap and he would become a Bard without anyone complaining.

To be fair the 4e Bard didn't feel bardish enough, like I said somewere else, you could reskin a Warlord and wouldn't know the difference- As I think that was the case with you- yours was a case of a niche not being protected enough so any refluffed class of the same role could do it just as well if not better. But it doesn't bother me at all you refflufed a warlord and call it a Bard. What I don't like is the reduction of classes to meaningless fluff, classes should matter.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I disagree with the premise of the OP. I think trying to accomplish the proposed goals would just create the least liked aspects of 3e and 4e in spades.

Players generally do not want to do an immense amount of crunching to figure out what their PC is good at. Yes, there should be a healthy amount of flexibility, but there is such a thing as too much flexibility.

Creating a system that allows the Wizard and the Fighter and the Cleric to all attempt to be the best at X, with a thin veneer of arcane or martial or divine paint to differentiate them is totally pointless. There are many fine RPGs that can do this; D&D is a poor choice.

If you want to make a cleric of the God of Thieves who is highly competent at sneaking, that is a great idea. If you want to actually be very good at sneaking, take some levels in Rogue. If you want to be awesome at sneaking, you will probably need to take many levels in Rogue.

I think it would be cool to have a party where the sneakiest guy is a cleric who worships the god of thieves, the tank is a mage with awesome robes of protection and great defensive spells, the DPS guy is a fighter who dual wields battle axes and wears lighter armor for mobility, and the leader is a rogue smooth-talker who can deceive almost any intelligent creature into falling into the party's traps and who is also the party healer via creating potions with his alchemy skills.

This is a fine concept. Multiclass!

The thing about niche protection is that just because the Fighter is the best at fighting, it does not mean that someone else would have trouble being "good enough" as the frontline meleeist.

You can build your blended party just fine. Niche protection just makes it obvious what the price is that will be paid and therefore where the party will need to work together to compensate. Niche protection is not a hindrance, it makes the PC and party creation easier.

 

[Hautamaki]

I think to some extent you can do this now at least in 1e if the entire group is willing to work at it, but why? Why not just play the class(es) most appropriate to what you are really trying to achieve?

Lan-"I assume DPS stands for Damage Per Swing"-efan

Thanks for the response. It's just the sort of question that needs to be asked and answered.

So why try to make a cleric who is just as good at some aspects of 'roguing' as the rogue?

Perhaps because the player loves the combat/adventuring role of the rogue but wants to roleplay as a cleric. Perhaps because the player wants to fill a rogues shoes but do so in a mechanically novel way. Perhaps because the player is just getting bored of the standard tropes. Perhaps because the player wants to recreate a character from fiction who fits that description. There are tons of reasons for why people may want to try switching to a different class without having to sacrifice (overall) on what they enjoyed doing most with their previous character's class.