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

[Scribe]

Silo'ing options isn't removing player choice.

It's only a problem if the game is not all about combat. D&D has often been accused of being all about combat, so it would only be a problem in D&D to the extent that said accusation is incorrect.

Now, if you want to build a fighter that isn't just good at combat above all else, that is a problem in every edition of D&D. Because you can't do it. (OK, you can dump STR & DEX and be a really bad fighter, but you wouldn't be very good at anything else, and, in 3e, for instance, you'd still have full BAB.)

In a balanced game not always all about combat, silo'ing would be good, it'd produce characters who can broadly participate in any campaign, regardless of its focus - it'd be good in D&D, too, just out of place, at odds with D&D tradition.

Sure, but I'm talking the actual D&D, and the actual Fighter, as of 2023. I can absolutely do other things, if I make the choices to not go all in on combat. Can I do them GREAT? Well no. Should I be able to? Well no. I'm a Fighter.

If I build for what the class is meant to do, in the actual edition that is relevant, I can do what Fighters are meant to do, and the rest of the party can handle the boring work of talking at NPCs, or taxiing me around.

 

[Incenjucar]

We have like twenty threads about how many people would like to play a fighter-like character who can do anything else without just being another spellcaster

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, but I'm talking the actual D&D, and the actual Fighter, as of 2023. I can absolutely do other things, if I make the choices to not go all in on combat. Can I do them GREAT? Well no. Should I be able to? Well no. I'm a Fighter.

OTOH, you're still getting Extra Attacks, Combat Style, etc, making you damn good at fighting, better than your non-combat Background and stat choices make you at whatever non-combat specialty you were aiming for. So, no, you can't help but be good at fighting, first and foremost, as a Fighter. Which is what it says on the tin, afterall.

5e isn't meant to be flexible, at least, 5e fighters weren't.

If I build for what the class is meant to do, in the actual edition that is relevant, I can do what Fighters are meant to do, and the rest of the party can handle the boring work of talking at NPCs, or taxiing me around.

Maybe what I said was a little convoluted. "Choosing" to play a fighter that's only good at fighting isn't a problem if D&D is, as it has long been accused of "all about combat." Were that accusation ever incorrect, it might be a problem, because a DM could just run D&D straight, and happen not to have much combat for levels at a time or a whole campaign, and you'd be dead weight. Fortunately, that accusation has never been too inaccurate in the pillar sense.... now, "actually, D&D is all about magic," that's a valid rejoinder, as is a further "yeah, all about using magic to win combats"

 

[Shardstone]

Utility caster is not a niche unless there are like 3-5 classes in the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We have like twenty threads about how many people would like to play a fighter-like character who can do anything else without just being another spellcaster

No, no.

What we secretly all really want is higher damage numbers.

No matter what we actually say.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean learn any magic-user spell - no luck learning Improved Invisibility back in the day, for instance.

I was cool with opening that up in the 2e era.