My thoughts on 'niche protection'

[Hautamaki]

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.



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.

I think your objections are easily overcome if the game just has in place default roles/choices that create a perfectly competent character that does what it ought to do. However if players who have been playing for 20 years want to try out unique character concepts there should be no mechanical punishment there. (happily they seem to be sort of going down this road with the idea of modules and whatnot) I realize this makes it harder to balance--that's why they are getting paid the big bucks and that's why we would be willing to shell out the big bucks if they succeed. When it comes to releasing a whole new edition at this point, go big or you might as well go home as everyone here already presumably has something they enjoy playing.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I agree that players should be able to play what they want to play.

I think the onus then shifts back onto the GM, to a significant extent at least. If none of the players builds a rogue or takes Thievery, that's probably a sign that locks and traps aren't a big part of what they're looking for in the campaign. The GM should then respect that.

Healing is, perhaps, the one special case - D&D relies so heavily on combat for conflict resolution, and D&D combats produce a constant need for hit point restoration. But a proper second wind or martial healing mechanic can probably do the job here.

 

[Bluenose]

What I don't want is to be told to go and play a ranger if I want to play a guy wielding two weapons. I want to be able to make a two weapon fighter, or a two weapon rogue.

Why? Does writing the label "Fighter" on your character sheet matter that much to you? The idea that a character concept requires you put a particular label on your character sheet seems quite bizarre. I mean, if you want to play a character that does a particular thing, then play the class that does that particular thing. It seems like the obvious thing to do.

 

[MoonSong]

Why? Does writing the label "Fighter" on your character sheet matter that much to you? The idea that a character concept requires you put a particular label on your character sheet seems quite bizarre. I mean, if you want to play a character that does a particular thing, then play the class that does that particular thing. It seems like the obvious thing to do.

To some of us those "labels" matter, a lot, a class name implies baggage that a good chunk of us aren't comfortable just ignoring. (why take Aristocrat when a rogue will do better? because I want Aristocrat and not rogue on my character sheet, why be a rogue when a ranger does better? becasue I want to be a rogue not a ranger)

 

[Morrus]

If I want a nimble fighter who likes to hit guys in just the right places then let me do that.

If they renamed the Rogue to a Fighter, you'd pretty much have that. You could just play a rogue and call yourself a fighter; the naming conventions are only names.

 

[Fifth Element]

To some of us those "labels" matter, a lot, a class name implies baggage that a good chunk of us aren't comfortable just ignoring. (why take Aristocrat when a rogue will do better? because I want Aristocrat and not rogue on my character sheet, why be a rogue when a ranger does better? becasue I want to be a rogue not a ranger)

I really can't follow this line of reasoning. What is written down on your character sheet does not matter in the game world. If what you want your character to be able to do is best represented by a certain class, then use that class. Call it whatever you like, and just use the rules for that class.

 

[Hautamaki]

If they renamed the Rogue to a Fighter, you'd pretty much have that. You could just play a rogue and call yourself a fighter; the naming conventions are only names.

But if you do that, you'll be a fairly weak combat character with a bunch of non-combat skills to compensate you that you may not be interested in anyways.

In 3.x it was relatively easy to work with your DM to homebrew up a custom class and this is what our gaming group usually did; in 4.x this became much more difficult.

I hope that 5e makes it unnecessary altogether and allows people to create a robust, unique, and balanced character just using RAW and perhaps some optional modules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another strange aspect to class is that some classes exist and are recognised in the game world and others aren't. For example, in 3e, wizards and sorcerers are probably recognised and named by the inhabitants of Greyhawk as such, but rogues and fighters aren't. At least I don't think they are.

It's quite possible that in 1e, thieves and assassins are named and recognised. Probably rangers too, as it's a title in Lord of the Rings. Fighters and clerics I'm not sure about.

This has a strong bearing, I think, on the class name that goes on a player's sheet.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What is written down on your character sheet does not matter in the game world.

I don't think this is always true. See my post above.

 

[Arlough]

This is going to be a long one, so bear with me. I'll sblock it down so it doesn't take up so much space.

[sblock]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.[/sblock]

I'd give you XP for coming to the same brilliant (obviously) conclusion that I was thinking, but I can't...yet.

To be fair the 4e Bard didn't feel bardish enough, [sblock]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.[/sblock] What I don't like is the reduction of classes to meaningless fluff, classes should matter.

Two things

1. The bard didn't exist at the time, that is why I used a warlord. Bard didn't come out until PHB2.
2. The class can matter, and I can think of two ways to make it so.(see below)

[sblock]I think your objections are easily overcome if the game just has in place default roles/choices that create a perfectly competent character that does what it ought to do. However if players who have been playing for 20 years want to try out unique character concepts there should be no mechanical punishment there. (happily they seem to be sort of going down this road with the idea of modules and whatnot) I realize this makes it harder to balance--that's why they are getting paid the big bucks and that's why we would be willing to shell out the big bucks if they succeed. When it comes to releasing a whole new edition at this point, go big or you might as well go home as everyone here already presumably has something they enjoy playing.[/sblock]

This touches on Minigiant's idea, which I will deal with below.

To some of us those "labels" matter, a lot, a class name implies baggage that a good chunk of us aren't comfortable just ignoring. (why take Aristocrat when a rogue will do better? because I want Aristocrat and not rogue on my character sheet, why be a rogue when a ranger does better? becasue I want to be a rogue not a ranger)

Please don't take this as an attack against you or an invalidation of your ideas, as that is certainly not my intent.
I agree that to some, labels do matter. But I postulate that they shouldn't.
The main argument with keeping labels seems to focus on some derivation of "it's always been done that way." My favorite counter argument is "So has the running of the bulls. That doesn't mean it isn't stupid." But in this case, it isn't stupid, it just isn't the right way. Labels tell us all sorts of things, and inform us in ways we usually don't realize. An example would be sequel. When I say something is a sequel, that means that it is an extension of the original story, but what it implies is that it will also be a similar story telling style, and therefore it sets expectations. The Chronicles of Riddick is a sequel to Pitch Black in the first sense, but completely fails to me the expectations generated by the implication of sameness.
Nonetheless, labels can still be useful, just not necessary. I can think of two ways to do this.

1) Use Class as an additional kit that is added to the Role and the Source to define a character. Perhaps it is a class feature or maybe a set of class abilities. Maybe it is like a Paragon Path, in that it is a themed set of features and abilities given at certain levels.

2) Use Minigiant's idea. Class does not define your character, your character defines a class. Similar to CCGs having names for certain deck designs, a class would be a certain set of abilities and methods. This means that advanced players could have complex builds that try out new ways of combining powers, skills, and abilities, and new players could pick a preset kit of those called "Fighter" and not have to worry about system mastery.

In either of these structures, the term "Fighter" would have meaning, but it would not be as concept limiting. Similar to how in the current edition, if you find yourself going up against a Brute, that tells you they hit hard and probably have lots of HP, but it doesn't tell you if they are armored or if they use one or two weapons.