D&D 5E [poll] Niche protection, yea or nay?

[BookBarbarian]

I don't think I can pick one of those answers. My thoughts are a little more complicated than that.

Niche protection is important.

If we have the classes in the game, then those classes should feel unique. i wouldn't give sneak attack to non rogues or martial arts to non monks, even though anyone can hit somebody form behind, and you don't have to be a member of an eastern style monastery to throw punches and kicks.

To me this means protecting niche abilities rather than dividing among the pillars.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I think players make PCs shine, not their class.

 

[Sunseeker]

Shining in different pillars is fine...as long as those pillars are reasonably expressed in an equitable manner in the game. IE: a social class in a combat-heavy game is not niche protection, there's nothing to protect since there's no social activity!

D&D has never had good support for the social or exploration aspects of the game, so a class devoted entirely to one of those is too niche within D&D.

But otherwise, yes the skills of the game should be spread out among the classes, with no class being able to do everything, but with every class being able to do something that the others cannot (or cannot do as well). There's no harm in a couple of classes doubling up, ie: fighters and barbarians or clerics and druids covering similar grounds, these classes are by and large, interchangeable in their functions and party role. If the party doubles up on roles well...that's not a game flaw.

But yes, niches should be protected. The best way to do this is just to keep any single class from having access to too much of any one element of gameplay.

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, I don't like that there are only two options. I like to limit availability of some things to a few classes, but not everything. Some examples I can think of are that I like the Criminal Background, which can help any character become at least a very basic "thief" if needed. And I like that Healing does not require a Cleric as much as it has in past editions (yes, I know that there have always been options other than the cleric, but they were typically never as good as the cleric).

I don't mind subclasses like the Eldritch Knight, or the War Mage, that blend things a bit.

But I do like each class to have clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, so that each character can shine in some ways, and not in others.

I don't think I fall into either of the two poll options.

Yeah, I'm the same, so I'm abstaining from this poll

 

[Ed Laprade]

Nope. With niche protection there's always the possibility that the character with the right ability for something that MUST be done to advance the 'whatever' won't be available for some reason. And the fewer characters there are in the party, the more likely that becomes. I like old school D&D as much as the next guy, maybe even more than some, but I've seen such games grind to a halt because the Thief died or the Wizard didn't know the right spell.

Of course, a good GM can relieve a lot of that sort of pressure, but not all GMs are as good as one might wish.

 

[Water Bob]

There isn't an answer on the poll for what I prefer.

I like preference to go to a class, but I'd like it possible for other classes.

For example, Thieves should be able to pick locks easily. But, there's no reason that a Fighter or Cleric couldn't also learn to pick locks--the cost in terms of character building is just higher.

 

[redrick]

There isn't an answer on the poll for what I prefer.

I like preference to go to a class, but I'd like it possible for other classes.

For example, Thieves should be able to pick locks easily. But, there's no reason that a Fighter or Cleric couldn't also learn to pick locks--the cost in terms of character building is just higher.

Agree with this. I feel like one of the philosophies in 5e is that a party composed entirely of one class should be able to handle all the major needs of your adventuring party, through a combination of bounded accuracy, subclasses and feats. There should just be some classes that are much better at certain things.

--EDITED TO ADD--

Which is to say, I don't like it when an older adventure says, "Party should contain at the minimum, a Thief, a Cleric and a Fighter," or what have you. I should be able to design an adventure without knowing which classes are going to be present. Moreover, I should be able to design an adventure that both spotlights and challenges all classes, without being impassable by groups lacking any particular class.

 

[Wulffolk]

I am conflicted.

I have an appreciation of traditional roles, but prefer flexibility.

I think that restrictively defined hard-wired classes are more of a problem than a feature. I prefer a more open and flexible class-less character system.

I think D&D has it backwards. In real life it is what skills and talents the person has that defines their role in the world. In D&D it is a character's class that defines what skills and talents the character is able to learn.

I don't mind if multiple character's can do the same thing. A DM can set up challenges to give everybody the chance to shine. You have 2 Rogues? Ok, maybe two locks must be picked simultaneously to avoid the trap, or the trap needs to be disarmed at the same time as the lock is picked, or it is complex enough that 2 Rogues using the help action make sense. Then each Rogue rolls one die and they use the highest roll. Your group has 2 Wizards? You may still find situations where you need multiple spells at once, or one casting offensively while the other casts defensively, or they must stretch their magic resources over a long period of time and use their powers conservatively. It all boils down to the DM to create the opportunity and then it is up to the Player to take advantage of it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes. Diversity is always better.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think I can pick one of those answers. My thoughts are a little more complicated than that.

Niche protection is important.

If we have the classes in the game, then those classes should feel unique. i wouldn't give sneak attack to non rogues or martial arts to non monks, even though anyone can hit somebody form behind, and you don't have to be a member of an eastern style monastery to throw punches and kicks.

To me this means protecting niche abilities rather than dividing among the pillars.

You are right. I actually answered the poll without realising that the title is quite a lot disconnected from it.

So to answer the title as well now, I am in favor of niche protection as a starting point, but I don't mind crossover e.g. via feats and some limited multiclassing. I don't like classless games tho.