D&D 5E Niche protection: the wizard’s niche

[Shadowedeyes]

I'm trying to find a way to make my answer useful to the OP, but I'm not sure how well I'll succeed.

I don't think any D&D class that could only do one of those qualifies as a D&D wizard.

You could probably give up one or two of those and still have something you could call a wizard, but not all except one.

That's also not my understanding of class niches and niche protection. As I have always viewed it, having a niche in D&D means the class is either the only one who can do something (generally an unnecessary extreme), or being the acknowledged best at doing something (the more common meaning). To protect that niche that simply has to be true. Don't make a class heal better than the Healer, hit harder than the Hitter, summon better than the Summoner (D&D classes are complicated, so I made up examples instead). Niche protection is not about a class being unable to do anything but their niche. That would be some sort of non-niche exclusion principle.

I agree with that assessment of niche protection. After all, if damage dealer is a niche, would that mean no one else can do any damage? How would that even work?

I also think one issue with the poll is that being restricted to one choice is a bit awkward when discussing the contributions in and out of combat the class can provide. Using the rogue for example, if scout was their niche, what would they be doing in combat? I think classes probably should have 2 niches, a combat and non-combat role if you are looking into niche protection.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree with that assessment of niche protection. After all, if damage dealer is a niche, would that mean no one else can do any damage? How would that even work?

I also think one issue with the poll is that being restricted to one choice is a bit awkward when discussing the contributions in and out of combat the class can provide. Using the rogue for example, if scout was their niche, what would they be doing in combat? I think classes probably should have 2 niches, a combat and non-combat role if you are looking into niche protection.

Well every class is designed to contribute in combat in some way. That might be directly or indirectly dealing damage (a Bard tossing out inspiration to help a Fighter land a blow they would otherwise miss is indirect damage, IMO), or mitigating incoming damage by hampering foes, healing, or just killing things faster.

So "damage dealer" isn't really a niche, it's simply a tactic some classes use to ensure victory in combat. Some classes lean into this more heavily than others, but usually that's because they lack the ability to do much else.

I guess by stepping back a bit, one could say what this poll is really asking is "in what way would you prefer the Wizard to primarily contribute to the success of the party?".

It's not that their ability to do all these things is bad, per se; that'd be like saying Battlemasters are bad because they can fear someone for a turn and prevent them from dealing damage effectively. It's more "which of these should the Wizard be most effective at doing?".

 

[jgsugden]

...OK, but that's your point. D&D Wizards have always ruled, they must continue to do so.

I DO NOT believe they have always ruled. They were very strong in early editions under the RAW, but I played in dozens of games and few used the RAW. Every game had a bible of house rules in the AD&D era. The rules were too convoluted to learn and if you did you saw gaps pretty quickly. And I'll tell you that a lot of those house rules - especially things like segmented combat that resulted in ighters ttacksing far more often than the wizard cast spells (making them more like modern fighters) changed the dynamic between the classes.

In the modern era, wizards have a wide range of capability, but if you track who takes down the meaningful enemies (CR is at least equal to average party level), you'll see that the melee classes built to deal damage are the stars of the show. Yes, wizards get to mop up with a fireball and look cool, but it is the fighter coming in and hitting hard over and over that is stealing the show. My 20th level fighter soloed an Ancient Red before the red could do anything. There were a few spells cast on him by allies and potions taken before the combat - but he sprinted up, attacked 10 times on the prone dragon in a surprise round, then won initiative and did it again as the party approached - and found him there having killed the dragon quite easily with attacks to spare.

Yes, the wizard gets a little credit for casting spells on the fighter - just as the fighter deserves a little credit for every spell the wizard gets to make because the fighter is tying up the monsters and keeping the wizard upright.

Have you seriously not played in any 5E campaigs where a melee character played a major role in the campaign? If so, your experience is far different than mine.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Niche protection is not about a class being unable to do anything but their niche.

It's about keeping other classes (usually the sorcerer) from having nice things.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I DO NOT believe they have always ruled.

(Obviously, aside from, 4e, for two years of not-really-D&D.)

But you do believe they always should 'rule' in that niche-transcending sense, going forward? That they can't be restricted to a niche like Fighters are to best* at fighting:

Restricting it this way is anathema to the concept of magic. It doesn't serve the iconic image of a wizard we've developed over the past decades. As such, my answer would be that we should not assign a niche to something that is intended to be field.

They were very strong in early editions under the RAW, but I played in dozens of games and few used the RAW. Every game had a bible of house rules in the AD&D era. The rules were too convoluted to learn and if you did you saw gaps pretty quickly. And I'll tell you that a lot of those house rules -

The one common experience we all had back in the day, was that every DM ran their 'by the book, no variants' campaign with very different rules.

For instance, "mana" (spell point) systems, which made casters far more versatile & powerful were quite common.

especially things like segmented combat that resulted in ighters ttacksing far more often than the wizard cast spells (making them more like modern fighters) changed the dynamic between the classes.

I didn't think anyone else did segmented combat for anything other than psionics. I don't even bother mentioning it when I talk about my old AD&D campaign, I figure it'd be too outre to waste time explaining.
Tho, I wouln't call "modern" fighters getting iterative attacks or Extra Attack at 5th & 11th far more often relative to attacking 10, 15, 20, 30+ times/round, in combats that rarely went a second round... nor, really, attacking far more often than what a wizard can do with an AE or a 3.5 fighter could with reach & WWA...

Yes, the wizard gets a little credit for casting spells on the fighter - just as the fighter deserves a little credit for every spell the wizard gets to make because the fighter is tying up the monsters and keeping the wizard upright.

Not s'much, really. Old-school, there was kinda an unwritten rule that, even if you weren't, as you often were, in a corridor or doorway where fighters formed a 'wall' of hp between the monsters and the rest of the party, melee monsters would generally engage the big tough fighter, anyway. In 3e discussion it became evident that nothing in the game actually made that happen, that the "fighter needed aggro!"
The 5e fighter is in much the same boat. Outside of convenient choke points it's not in any position(npi) to protect anyone. 5e, in general, gives very little mechanical support to such a tank/defender function, with a few non-PH builds, maybe one ea of Pally, Barb, & Fighter, having some mechanics that tend that way.
We often talk about D&D both as it was and as it is, as well as both how we've played it and how it's written, as if there aren't really any distinctions among those experiences, like it's just one thing. "Fighters must protect the squishy casters" is an age-old D&Dism, but they were never given mechanical support for it in the TSR era, and, there's really not much call for it in 5e, where casters aren't even that squishy anymore, even if you were to carefully build to be OK at it. So you hear that, you seem memes about it, you believe it, you make it happen as a DM - but it was only ever backed up by the mechanics for a couple of the last 50 years.

Have you seriously not played in any 5E campaigs where a melee character played a major role in the campaign? If so, your experience is far different than mine.

I have always run D&D much more than played it. AD&D and 4e I ran long campaigns that went to high levels. 3e not so much, only to mid levels, and I got to play in two longish campaigns. 5e I stuck to running AL, especially introductory one-shots, at the FLGS and local conventions. Running or playing, it's always been quite evident how badly D&D's core assumptions, like class, Vancian casting, and time-pressure balance work in practice, and how much the DM needs to do to compensate for that, both consciously/overtly and as a matter of skill & experience that becomes second nature.
But, personal experience of D&D says a lot more about the DM than the game. They're great DMs and terrible DMs and a whole spectrum between. At the extremes, it doesn't matter how bad or good the specific edition or variants are.



* in the advertising claim sense of best that they're just as good as anyone else.

 

[jgsugden]

...But you do believe they always should 'rule' in that niche-transcending sense, going forward? That they can't be restricted to a niche like Fighters are to best* at fighting:...

I believe that doing so NEGATES the identity they've developed and essentially removes them froim the game - and as they are an essential element of the game as it exists today, with iconic history assiociated to it, removing that identity would do pretty much the same thing that 4E did to the wizard. And what was the response after 4E stripped out what made the wizard unique? They undid it in 5E and reverted back to the prior model with a few small lessons learned.

 

[Aldarc]

I believe that doing so NEGATES the identity they've developed and essentially removes them froim the game - and as they are an essential element of the game as it exists today, with iconic history assiociated to it, removing that identity would do pretty much the same thing that 4E did to the wizard. And what was the response after 4E stripped out what made the wizard unique? They undid it in 5E and reverted back to the prior model with a few small lessons learned.

IMHO, WotC threw out a lot of babies out with the bathwater when it came to reverting from changes made with 4e. But obviously WotC was trying to win people back so they treated nearly everything from 4e as if they were "untouchables."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I believe that doing so NEGATES the identity they've developed and essentially removes them froim the game - and as they are an essential element of the game as it exists today, with iconic history assiociated to it,removing that identity would do pretty much the same thing that 4E did to the wizard.

Differentiating a class by focusing what it can do to be distinct from what other classes can do, negates it's identity?

So, in a game where a Wizard and a Sorcerer can both cast Magic Missile, Sleep, and Fireball, the Wizard has a distinct identity, but in a game where only the Wizard can cast Magic Missile, Sleep, and Fireball, it lacks an identity?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Differentiating a class by focusing what it can do to be distinct from what other classes can do, negates it's identity?

So, in a game where a Wizard and a Sorcerer can both cast Magic Missile, Sleep, and Fireball, the Wizard has a distinct identity, but in a game where only the Wizard can cast Magic Missile, Sleep, and Fireball, it lacks an identity?

It lacks their existing identity, and gives them a more restrictive one in its place (like 4e did).

 

[Tony Vargas]

It lacks their existing identity, and gives them a more restrictive one in its place (like 4e did).

The existing identity being?

Bookish mage who can prepare a different spell if you give him a day's warning?