My thoughts on 'niche protection'

[Saagael]

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.".

Thank you thank you thank you thank you for saying this. I keep having to explain that classes don't define what concept you play, its instead the other way around.

 

[MoonSong]

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.


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


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)

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

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.

I know the Bard wasn't in PHB1, like hl I know, and I'm not questioning you reskinned a warlord to be your Bard, that is fine.

Now you say my way isn't "the right way", but it is as right as yours is, there isn't a "one true way", by saying my way isn't right automatically you are implying I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong, just different.

However saying that, a D&D where class is just a bunch of dissociated crunch and fluff won't talk to me at all. I want a D&D where my bard can be a bow hunter with survival skills and a dog following him around and still be a bard first and foremost, not ranger.
Where my fighter can be a two-weapon wielder with high mobility and still be a fighter, a master of martial combat, not a rogue. (both are character concepts I've played and I wish Next will alllow me to recreate them). Now a ranger will likely do it better than my bard and his pet is by definition more powerful but he has a very different baggage than my bard has, be it naturey stuff or urban stuff or whatever, a ranger is a master of his environment, whille a bard is an extraordinary performer.

I want meaningfull classes that recreate an archetype but at the same time flexible enough to aboard it in different ways, not classes that are a mechanical straightjacket with a label attached that can easily be removed at will. or worse classes that are discrete packets of stereotipical abilities. This doesn't really negates the possibility of more laser focussed classes (like warmage or healer), they still have a place. But for core every class should be as flexible as possible without becoming just a label. In other words I'd rather have fixed flavor with flexible crunch than static mechanics with no fluff integrated.

 

[Arlough]

I know the Bard wasn't in PHB1, like hl I know, and I'm not questioning you reskinned a warlord to be your Bard, that is fine.

Now you say my way isn't "the right way", but it is as right as yours is, there isn't a "one true way", by saying my way isn't right automatically you are implying I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong, just different.

Sorry about that, I used italics to emphisize the word "the", but when I go back and re-read it, it becomes appearant that it wasn't visually obvious enough. Also, it doesn't show up when someone quotes you because then everything is in italics.
So please read it as something more along the lines of:

Your way isn't THE right way, but it may be A right way.​

I've gone back and made it bold as well, in hopes that it helps get my intended point across.

However saying that, a D&D where class is just a bunch of dissociated crunch and fluff won't talk to me at all. I want a D&D where my bard can be a bow hunter with survival skills and a dog following him around and still be a bard first and foremost, not ranger.
Where my fighter can be a two-weapon wielder with high mobility and still be a fighter, a master of martial combat, not a rogue. (both are character concepts I've played and I wish Next will alllow me to recreate them). Now a ranger will likely do it better than my bard and his pet is by definition more powerful but he has a very different baggage than my bard has, be it naturey stuff or urban stuff or whatever, a ranger is a master of his environment, whille a bard is an extraordinary performer.

Using option 1, you have a:

• Means
  Martial - You do things physically
• Method
  Artillery - Bow
• Combat Role
  Catalyst - Enhances and Debilitates actors in conflict
• Exploration Role
  Defender/controler - Reduces party conflict fatigue
• Social Role
  Striker - Moves conflicts towards resolution
• Background
  Naturalist (making that up now) - Bonuses to exploration
• Class (Theme): Bard
  Combat: +X to Catalyst actions; -X to Striker actions; -X Defender actions
  Exploration: -X to Catalyst actions; -X to Striker actions; 0 to Defender actions
  Social: +X to Catalyst actions; +X to Striker actions; +X to Defender actions
  Class tricks: X% know something check
• Companion - optional
  Dog - he is good

Or something like that where Bard is not fluff, but does not restrict you to roguish fighter who is bad at both [3e] or Arcane Leader Controler who needs special weapons and was, until psionics, the most overly complex to play [4e].
The bard theme really helps you shine in social situations, but does not prevent you from taking actions in the other pillars. It is more a modifier on how you do things than a limiter on what you can do.

I want meaningfull classes that recreate an archetype but at the same time flexible enough to aboard it in different ways, not classes that are a mechanical straightjacket with a label attached that can easily be removed at will. or worse classes that are discrete packets of stereotipical abilities. This doesn't really negates the possibility of more laser focussed classes (like warmage or healer), they still have a place. But for core every class should be as flexible as possible without becoming just a label. In other words I'd rather have fixed flavor with flexible crunch than static mechanics with no fluff integrated.

I assume you are referencing option 2. How would the label existing prevent you from going outside it, or focusing on aspects of it? All I was thinking of was a template called, let's say, Bard, that had X (skills) of Y (type) to help them accomplish Z (goal) and that worked well with each other. Then, after that you could build out and away from that starting point.
Or, if you are familiar enough with the system and have an idea of what you want to do and what synergies with what, you could start from scratch.

Does the name alter the way you play? Because it seems that you don't want them tied to mechanics at all, but you still want them to exist, and I don't understand why?

 

[innerdude]

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!

Which is essentially what FantasyCraft does, more or less, only they have race (background and skills), traits (profession and skills), and classes (combat stuff).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Exactly.

My character can call himself "El Gato, the Infiltrator Extraordinaire" if I want. For example, in 3e, whether I build him as Rogue10 or Clr5/Rog5 is a player decision, with pros and cons.

Why exactly does anyone feel that Ftr10, Wiz10, Clr10, and Rog10 should all be equally valid choices for a stealth build? There are many, many, many choices that make reasonable stealth builds (at least in 3e), but, no, not every possible route works very well.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

If somehow knowing someone is a "Wizard" (11th level Magic User in 1e) tells you nothing at all about his actual abilities, then there is no point in calling that person a Wizard. He is just a Generic Hero of Biggish Level and the titles are vanity item that would be campaign dependent, not a matter of class mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I've often wondered about this.

In 4e, I think that power sources are distinct within the gameworld. So it makes sense to talk about whether someone can use arcane, divine, psionic, or primal power. Wizards (and some swordmages) are therefore distinctive, as those who can use arcane spells from books. Warlocks are also distinctive, as having made pacts.

I don't think there's anything that all sorcerers have in common, though, other than being arcane spell users who don;t use books and who haevn't made pacts.

In my own game, I don't think of there being a huge ingame difference between the fighter/cleric Warpriest of Moradin, and the paladin Questing Knight of the Raven Queen. They're both heavily armed and armoured warriors in service of a god.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The rules for magic have a much stronger claim to be the laws of physics of the game world than the other rules. And then there's stuff like spellbooks, familiars, holy symbols, material components, etc, which are obviously real within the game world. So the inhabitants of Greyhawk or wherever would be able to tell that these different types of magic power exist, and operate in a consistent manner.

There's a feeling that the rules for 3e fighters and rogues are not the laws of physics however. Feats and sneak attacks are rules constructions that are more abstract representations of what's going on in the game world than the rules for magic missile.

If feats and sneak attacks are real, then rogues and fighters would be recognised in the game world*. But it's a short step from that to knowing how many hit points you have, and then you're in Order Of The Stick territory and I don't think most rpg-ers want to go down that route.

The consequence of this, recognising that rules for martial characters are less 'real' than the rules for magic, means that everyone should accept that such rules can be quite flexible, contain more game-y constructs, and no one will ever complain about such mechanics being dissociated.

With 1e thieves and assassins, their respective guilds exist in the game world. 1e bards have a college, I think, and monks are trained in monasteries.

A lot of people in this thread seem to take very much the Champions approach to classes in D&D, disconnecting the mechanics and the flavor text. I'm not sure if you can do that for magic-using classes. Also, it's contrary to the original intention for PrCs.


*Another possibility that just occurred to me is that feats and sneak attacks are real but that the inhabitants of the game world don't notice them, as a genre convention. Much in the same way that characters in genre fiction, such as horror, don't usually realise that all the events in their lives unfold according to genre rules.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Which is essentially what FantasyCraft does, more or less, only they have race (background and skills), traits (profession and skills), and classes (combat stuff).

This is one of the unintended consequences to the GSL. Under the OGL, designers really explored what could be done with the 3rd and the d20 system. 4th saw no (or little) such tinkering and I think that hurt the edition as a whole.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Are you referring to a 3e or 4e character? Because a 4e rogue is not a fairly weak combat character, at all and his skill set is pretty flexible. You want a martial, mobile character that deals out the damage? That's called a rogue by the game. Mine is called The Right Honorable Sethalarmis, Priest of his Thewitude Kord the Mighty.