My thoughts on 'niche protection'

[Eldritch_Lord]

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.

I disagree. Which feats are more abstract or less noticeable than spells? Power Attack? Combat Expertise? If fighting defensively and full defense are noticeable in-game (and at the very least they can be, since I've always seen them described as such), then another trade-accuracy-for-benefits combat stance probably is. Improved Disarm? Improved Grapple? Well, you notice their effects as much as you do BAB's effects, but that doesn't make either the feats or BAB particularly gamist. If those are "unreal, gamist mechanics" then so are bless, divine favor, and other purely-numerical spells...but I'm fairly sure we can agree that purely-numerical spells like those (and by extension similar feats) can work within the game world just fine.

Likewise with sneak attack. If a rogue shivs you in the kidney, you might not be able to pick out how many sneak attack dice he has, any more than you could necessarily pick out the number of dice a fireball has, but you can definitely tell that he's one of those people who can put their victims in a world of hurt if they get the drop on their victims or force their victims to split their attention.

Just because there's no Martial Knowledge skill that lets you identify feats and such like Spellcraft can for spells (though perhaps there should be) doesn't mean the martial types are less grounded in the world. If you see someone cast a fireball, you don't know whether they're a wizard, sorcerer, wu jen, shugenja, warmage, or something else until you see them break out a spellbook or the like, but you know that they're an arcane caster and that you can investigate further to find out exactly how they work magic. Likewise, if you see someone leap out of the shadows and kill someone in a single lethal hit to the vitals, you don't know whether they're a rogue, scout, ninja, spellthief, or something else until you see them turn invisible or the like, but you know that they're a nonmagical specialist and that you can investigate further to find out exactly what they can do. Granted, a critical hit or ToB maneuver could also involve a hit to the vitals so you're not guaranteed a one-to-one flavor-to-mechanics correspondence all the time, but then there are lots of ways to shoot cones of flame at people too, so again magic and the mundane are on even footing.

You don't automatically go from "Hey guys, I think I can figure out what that guy can do in combat!" to "Hey guys, I just discovered that I'm a character in an RPG who has 86 HP, BAB +10, and a bunch of feats!" As with any abstract mechanics, there's a spectrum from trying to simulate things on the one end, to going purely for mechanics on the other end, to aligning with reality but abstracting everything away somewhere in the middle, and plenty of stuff in between those poles. AD&D/3e martial types still definitely fall on the "trying to fit into the world" end of things, and even if you personally don't want to treat all the rules as laws of physics the rules are internally-consistent and detailed enough (which, granted, isn't all that detailed) that you can do it that way, given appropriate fantasy/mythological assumptions.

 

[Minigiant]

The change of the definition of class in 5e is, like I said, the major aspects of the 5e.

Class starts as title, recognizable features, and method. But 3e, class was reduce to just recognizable features with title only being included with certain prestige classes. 4e rolled role into the 3e style class where class is features and role with title in some paragon paths and epic destinies.

5e seems to be removing title/status from class and tossing it in background and theme. Then features are condensed into method and 5e classes are 100% method.

Hack McSlash (of the Eastern McSlashes not the dirty scheming Western McSlashes) might be assumed to have a keep in an earlier edition. Or tons of feats and a weapon specialization in another edition. Or a defender role and a swordmastery in a later edition.

But in 5e, Hack is a fighter. So when a problem arises, he fights and is good at it. That is all that comes from his fighter aspect. His noble birth, aggression, and humanity come from his background, theme, and race.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You don't automatically go from "Hey guys, I think I can figure out what that guy can do in combat!" to "Hey guys, I just discovered that I'm a character in an RPG who has 86 HP, BAB +10, and a bunch of feats!" As with any abstract mechanics, there's a spectrum from trying to simulate things on the one end, to going purely for mechanics on the other end, to aligning with reality but abstracting everything away somewhere in the middle, and plenty of stuff in between those poles.

Good points, Eldritch_Lord, can't xp you.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Gonna jump in right here and stop ya sparky.

If you could just re-skin a class to make it whatever you want; why did 4e have dozens of classes that were just variants on the same 4 roles?

I mean, I could take a ranger, give him two katars, and call him a monk, so there is no need for the monk class right? Or make a rogue/cleric hybrid and call him an avenger. Or heck, a sorcerer or warlock could just be a wizard with an alternate origin story, so no need for those classes either, right?

Titles DO matter. There is a fine line between recoloring a fireball and changing its to ice damage and turning a ranger into a rogue. I would never let a PC roll up a dwarf and then say he looks/acts human just so he gets the dwarven racial benefits for the same reason. At some point, those names have to mean something or else they're needless filler.

 

[Hussar]

Gonna jump in right here and stop ya sparky.

If you could just re-skin a class to make it whatever you want; why did 4e have dozens of classes that were just variants on the same 4 roles?

I mean, I could take a ranger, give him two katars, and call him a monk, so there is no need for the monk class right? Or make a rogue/cleric hybrid and call him an avenger. Or heck, a sorcerer or warlock could just be a wizard with an alternate origin story, so no need for those classes either, right?

Titles DO matter. There is a fine line between recoloring a fireball and changing its to ice damage and turning a ranger into a rogue. I would never let a PC roll up a dwarf and then say he looks/acts human just so he gets the dwarven racial benefits for the same reason. At some point, those names have to mean something or else they're needless filler.

Umm, no?

A monk and a ranger, while both strikers are significantly mechanically different. This is a misunderstanding of what role means. Being a striker carries some implications - high damage, low defenses, high mobility - but, beyond that, have very few limitations.

No, no, you can't just reskin a ranger and call him a monk and expect him to act exactly the same as the 4e monk class. Funnily enough, we have two thri-kreen characters in our Dark Sun game and one is a monk, and the other is a ranger. The monk is very mobile, using flurry to spread damage around. The ranger is focuses on having a bajillion attacks that are far less individually damaging but can add up in a serious hurry.

They play out completely differently. And both are very different from my human faelock which is far more of a controller than striker.

Just because two characters share a role does not make them mechanically identical, or even really close other than in some of the most superficial ways.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Dude, you're just making his point.

 

[Minigiant]

Gonna jump in right here and stop ya sparky.

If you could just re-skin a class to make it whatever you want; why did 4e have dozens of classes that were just variants on the same 4 roles?

I mean, I could take a ranger, give him two katars, and call him a monk, so there is no need for the monk class right? Or make a rogue/cleric hybrid and call him an avenger. Or heck, a sorcerer or warlock could just be a wizard with an alternate origin story, so no need for those classes either, right?

Titles DO matter. There is a fine line between recoloring a fireball and changing its to ice damage and turning a ranger into a rogue. I would never let a PC roll up a dwarf and then say he looks/acts human just so he gets the dwarven racial benefits for the same reason. At some point, those names have to mean something or else they're needless filler.

Yes, there is a thin line.

This is why 5E is almost completely stripping both role and fluff from class.

Now class are "How you do things" and not "What you are".

So you could call your ranger a "rogue"... but your "rogue" would have wilderness skills, favored enemy, high combat ability, no enhanced lockpicking ability, and no sneak attack.

Your warlock could be a "wizard" but would have an edritch blast, a link to demons, devils, fey, or otherworldly stars, a pact curse, no Vancian spells, and no spellbook.

Tittles both matter and don't. Your class does not define your character at all anymore. Your character defines which class you choose.

So your "Sam the Rogue" can fight well in melee and at range. He is a fighter or fighter/rogue as only fighters can be a threat at range and melee at the same time.

If you insist on "Sam" being the actually rogue of the rogue class, you might have to use a specific rogue build. But it is easier with a fighter with the thief background.

 

[Hussar]

Dude, you're just making his point.

No, I'm not making his point. He's claiming that that because two classes are mechanically the same, you can easily switch one to the other. That's false. You can't just reskin a 4e monk as a 4e ranger. It doesn't work. Or at least not very well.

What you can do, however, is take a concept that is not tied to specific mechanics, like "guy that fights with two katars" and make him either a monk or a ranger. You could make a 3e monk with a ranger or a monk and he'd be pretty close either way.

However, the point I thought he was making was that all the classes are so close mechanically that they're all grey mush homogenous. That's not true.

So, no, you cannot reskin one class as another class, you most certainly can reskin one class as another concept.

"I wanna fighter with a bow!!!" goes the constant cry. Fine, play a rogue or a ranger. Done. "But.. but... but... he's not a fighter!" Who cares? It covers the concept you claim you want and does it very well. That it says ranger or rogue at the top doesn't change that one whit.

OTOH, I cannot reskin the fighter class as a ranger class and expect them to be the same. Class and character concept are not the same thing in 4e and it's a mistake to try to link them this way.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Easy enough to also have "mercenaries' guilds" where warrior types hang out.

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.

Or, from a more cynical point of view, they are looking for a specific, usually advantageous, set of mechanics (for whatever reason) and just hoping the flavour can bend itself to suit.

*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.

This might be overkill. If Joe the Hero pulls off his trademark Whirlwind Attack move anyone who sees it will recognize it as a special move - whether they specifically call it a "feat" or not being mostly irrelevant.

Maybe martial feats should be renamed "moves" or something... ::shrug::

... He is just a Generic Hero of Biggish Level ...

This is our first warning that the mid-range tier is henceforth to be known as "Biggish Level".

Lan-"always looking to enbiggenate my level"-efan

 

[Savage Wombat]

No, I'm not making his point. He's claiming that that because two classes are mechanically the same, you can easily switch one to the other.

No, actually, he's not. He's suggesting that a previous poster's suggestion that you could just re-skin a class to suit your concept was in error. That if you could re-skin a warlord as a bard, you could re-skin a ranger as a monk.

By pointing out that a ranger and a monk are functionally different classes, you are ergo supporting his argument without realizing it.