D&D 5E [poll] Niche protection, yea or nay?

[cbwjm]

I don't like niche protection but I'm happy to have some classes be better overall in 1 or 2 pillars but have options (like subclasses) that can change their focus.

 

[Tallifer]

I myself prefer the 4th Edition system of Roles (Striker, Controller, Defender, Support [which 4E strangely called Leader]) rather than pillars which mean that some players cannot contribute to combat or to other situations.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I like niche protection but it has to take into account the zeitgeist of the game. It's not good in a combat oriented game for only one class to be good in combat, for example. The other problem is spellcasters which trample all over every niche - admittedly quasi balanced in OS DnD cos they are so fragile and weak at low levels, if you think that is a reasonable form of balance.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I like niche protection to an extent. While I think all classes need to have something to contribute to all pillars, I also definitely prefer classes to be better at certain pillars than others, to have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[ccs]

Since my preferred edition is 1e I guess my answer is Niche Protection.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Do you prefer classes to have niche protection like in TSR D&D where one class may shine in one pillar over the others, but not in another. Or do you prefer classes to all be equally able to contribute the same in all three pillars like in later editions?

This question can't be meaningfully answered. Your definitions are too terse to be complete. I have no idea what scope you're looking at, and so I have no idea what you're even asking. If such a thing exists, this is a "not even wrong" territory of game design.

In other words, I reject the assertion that "niche protection" means "one class may shine in one pillar over the others, but not in another" and that the opposite is "classes [are] equally able to contribute the same in all three pillars". In fact I reject the assertion that those are even opposites. So, again, I have no idea what you're actually asking because it's going to be different for everybody who reads the question.

I also reject the hidden claim that later editions don't have "niche protection" even using your flawed definition. The major difference in class design between AD&D and 5e D&D is the number of classes. The classes didn't step on each other's toes because there were fewer toes to step on. AD&D had Fighter (Paladin, Ranger), Magic-User (Illusionist), Thief (Assassin), Cleric (Druid), and Monk. (No, Bard doesn't count; Assassin barely counts.) 10 "classes," but they're actually presented as *5* distinct classes with some modified/upgraded versions that you might be able to play if you roll well. 5e has Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock. 12 distinct classes, all with slightly different mechanics, all with multiple archetypes or sub classes, many being classes formed from what are essentially the old subclasses. However, there's only maybe 3 to 5 roles in combat and out of combat. So obviously 5e allows multiple classes to fulfill the same role! There aren't enough roles for 12 different classes to each get a different role. That doesn't mean that every class is equally capable of filling every role.

 

[Leatherhead]

"Niche Protection" is attaching a mechanic to a skill or ability so that only X class can effectively do it. It is not simply being better than everyone else at something.

The best example of this is the Thief/Rogue Class.

When Thieves were first made, they had this handy dandy chart that listed out the % chance of them succeeding at any of their Thieving Skills. If you weren't a Thief? You weren't as good, and that's if you could even attempt to do the same thing in the first place, depending on how lenient your DM was.

It became even more explicit in 3.x, when Rogues got the Trapfinding ability. Which meant any class that didn't have the Ability couldn't use their search skill to find traps. And it wasn't until later on when other classes got it, so parties were stuck with a slot "reserved" for the Rogue, and any character who wanted to work with traps would have to be a Rogue (at least at first).

Having only one type of character even able to attempt something is bad, having them better than everyone else is ok.

 

[CubicsRube]

In d&d? I like niche protection. I like strong thematic classes. If i want less niche protection i prefer a skills based system (e.g, shadowrun).

However! I dream of a d&d where each class has their niche protection in each of the 3 pillars of the game! I'm not sure how it would work for exploration, but it makes sense to me that a fighter would be better at socialising in a rough army barracks than an effeminate bard, or a warlock in a coven rather than a paladin of all that is good.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This question can't be meaningfully answered. Your definitions are too terse to be complete. I have no idea what scope you're looking at, and so I have no idea what you're even asking. If such a thing exists, this is a "not even wrong" territory of game design.

In other words, I reject the assertion that "niche protection" means "one class may shine in one pillar over the others, but not in another" and that the opposite is "classes [are] equally able to contribute the same in all three pillars". In fact I reject the assertion that those are even opposites. So, again, I have no idea what you're actually asking because it's going to be different for everybody who reads the question.

I also reject the hidden claim that later editions don't have "niche protection" even using your flawed definition. The major difference in class design between AD&D and 5e D&D is the number of classes. The classes didn't step on each other's toes because there were fewer toes to step on. AD&D had Fighter (Paladin, Ranger), Magic-User (Illusionist), Thief (Assassin), Cleric (Druid), and Monk. (No, Bard doesn't count; Assassin barely counts.) 10 "classes," but they're actually presented as *5* distinct classes with some modified/upgraded versions that you might be able to play if you roll well. 5e has Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock. 12 distinct classes, all with slightly different mechanics, all with multiple archetypes or sub classes, many being classes formed from what are essentially the old subclasses. However, there's only maybe 3 to 5 roles in combat and out of combat. So obviously 5e allows multiple classes to fulfill the same role! There aren't enough roles for 12 different classes to each get a different role. That doesn't mean that every class is equally capable of filling every role.

And yet, 50+ people so far thought they could understand it well enough to answer as well as many others who have commented. I also find it pretty funny that you're basically saying "I don't understand what you're asking, but I disagree with it." If it doesn't make sense and you don't understand it, then how could you disagree with it? Can't have it both ways.

 

[5ekyu]

And yet, 50+ people so far thought they could understand it well enough to answer as well as many others who have commented. I also find it pretty funny that you're basically saying "I don't understand what you're asking, but I disagree with it." If it doesn't make sense and you don't understand it, then how could you disagree with it? Can't have it both ways.

I take a vague opening about niche protection to mean i should in my response clarify where appropriate what i am defining it as as opposed to some unanswerable mystery of the cosmos.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app