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

[Scribe]

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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...

 

[Bill Zebub]

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?

 

[Scribe]

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

Yes.

"I want to play the best DPS class." if other classes can come close, or surpass it, then for players who wanted to play the best DPS, with 'niche protection' so to not be threatened, then its a problem.

 

[Scribe]

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'.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

 

[Scribe]

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I'll try.

The whole point, i think, of a class-based system with adventuring groups or parties is that it somewhat encourages or even gently forces some inter-party dependence: each character has serious weaknesses that can only really be offset by other characters having strengths in those areas, while you help cover off for their weaknesses.

Fighter's can't heal or cast spells or sneak. But they can fight.
Mages can't fight or heal or sneak. But they can cast spells.
Clerics can't sneak. But they can heal, and do a bit of the other things.
Thieves can't fight or heal or cast spells. But they can sneak.

The bolded are, of course, the clear niches those classes (or class groups) occupy. Each has weaknesses the others can fill in for, an each has something it's really good at that the others can't do. Sometimes it's even a good thing to have some built-in redundancy by doubling or even tripling up on one or more of those class groups, such that if-when you lose someone you've still got a backup to fill that gap.

Once you start eroding those niches to the point anywhere near "any class can fight and heal and cast spells and sneak" then you have no further need of the rest of the adventuring group: you can do it all on your own as a one-man band. And at that point, what's the point of designing the game around the 'adventuring party' paradigm?

The problems arise when you get to having so many classes that there's just not enough niches or even sub-niches to go around. A few other classic niches past and present have been woodscraft (Rangers), dealing with the dead (Necromancers), mind-messing (Illusionists and-or Psionicists), and music/sound (Bards).

There's also some things that everyone should be able to do, or at least try, and thus aren't good to use as class niches. Tactician isn't a niche; everyone can think and make plans. Talk-droid isn't a niche; everyone can talk and (try to) be diplomatic. Explorer by itself isn't really a niche; everyone can, in their own way, explore.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You're coming at this from a completely different direction than I am.

I'm not thinking (and don't really care) about players feeling special or wanting to be the only one of their class/niche in the group. That's not why I care about niche protection, and to me it's an irrelevant issue. Players can play what they want, and if someone's nose gets bent because someone else is playing the same class that's a them problem: they just gotta deal with it.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of "party interdependence is highly desirable in a party-based game", and that hard-ish-coded niches greatly promote that interdependence.