D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

I don't even understand why "niche protection" is a thing. Could somebody explain to me why it's desirable?

From the perspective of giving every class something unique, I kind of get it, the problem is if you have more than 3 or 4 classes, it falls down pretty quick, if you cover all the hybrid (niche combinations) it really starts to fall down.

Then you have the modern 'X should be the best DPS, not Y, because DPS is all X does!' problem.

I dont know, just like the "Fighters do not have skills" topic, its a problem only if one isnt looking at the actual solutions that exist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't even understand why "niche protection" is a thing. Could somebody explain to me why it's desirable?

Well, it depends on whether you consider "niches" desirable. Traditionally it so in groups of any size you don't have redundant characters which a lot of players are not thrilled at finding themselves playing.

Once you accept that concept, "protecting" the niches seems desirable because peple can pick out individual classes after looking at what other people are doing and find themselves safely in their own niche with their own functions.

As @Scribe more or less mentions, other games manage without as much sometimes rigid focus there, but not everyone finds those adequate, so...
 

So....it has something to do with players wanting to feel special?

EDIT: Which still doesn't make sense to me, because even if there's only one class that can perform a function....say, Rogues and opening locks and disarming traps...what's to prevent another player from also choosing Rogue?
 



Game balance concerns for a 'balanced party'.

No, I get that. What I mean is that a Cleric player, for example, would only be concerned about another healing class threatening his niche if another player were actually going to choose it. Which would only happen if the other player didn't care about party balance, or the party were large enough to justify it. But once that's established, there doesn't need to be another healing class for the niche to be threatened: the 2nd player could just choose to play a 2nd cleric.

I'm having trouble seeing the desire for class-based niche protection as anything other than catering to a personality type I wouldn't want at my table anyway.
 

No, I get that. What I mean is that a Cleric player, for example, would only be concerned about another healing class threatening his niche if another player were actually going to choose it. Which would only happen if the other player didn't care about party balance, or the party were large enough to justify it. But once that's established, there doesn't need to be another healing class for the niche to be threatened: the 2nd player could just choose to play a 2nd cleric.

Yeah, I don't disagree.

The issue (for a given definition of issue) comes into play only when the players are not on the same page, or, if the game is designed such that party comp really matters, and the players don't get it, or care.
 

Yeah, I don't disagree.

The issue (for a given definition of issue) comes into play only when the players are not on the same page, or, if the game is designed such that party comp really matters, and the players don't get it, or care.

For the record, I've always wanted a healing class that gave up the Cleric's melee abilities (armor and weapons) to more purely focus on support. Divine Soul Sorcerer is actually a pretty a good option for it, but I'd rather it be a class.
 

Remove ads

Top