D&D (2024) Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.

[tetrasodium]

i realised the post i replied to was about a team of gestalt rangers but i don't think that doesn't mean the point i was springboarding off of it isn't still valid, you can have large amounts of crossover in shared class abilities while still making the classes built using those abilities unique and thematic, especially if you give each class's version of those abilities their own spin on it, and of course the abilities that are class exclusive on top of that.

I agree that you can but 5e doesn't have the mechanical design space to fit distinction like that. Unfortunately wotc doesn't seem to be showing any signs of reversing course on the current everyone can probably do everything overly simplified overly streamlined mess of bland.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as the concept of 'niche protection' is concerned... the way that D&D has currently set themselves is that most characters can have the opportunity to do anything, but that some classes/characters are more focused on it and have a much easier time with it. Which is I think the best way to go-- if you want something done very, very well... having a PC of a certain class will accomplish it. But if no one ends up playing that class, you can still get the job taken care of by someone else. They won't be the best possible player at it (some might uncharitably say 'overpowered' at it), but they can still get the job done as needed.

That's why any PC can have the opportunity to gain proficiency in Thieves' Tools to open locks and disarm traps (even though Rogues have additional abilities that make them better at it)... and why any PC can have the opportunity to have healing magic (even though Clerics and the Life Cleric specifically have additional abilities that make them better at it.) A party can cover almost all the standard adventuring party bases regardless of the classes people choose, just with the right selection of backgrounds, subclasses, feats and so forth. Each class still have a 'niche' of what part of the standard adventuring bases they are best suited for and can absolutely be the go-to for the party when it comes up... but they aren't required to be there.

I do not foresee a time where WotC returns D&D to the design space where only one class can cover a very important adventuring base and if you don't have that class in the party then that base cannot be covered in any way, shape, or form. That is an unnecessary protection of a so-called 'niche' that would ruin the distribution of class selection and no gain the game anything worthwhile.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait, what? Cooperation in a party stems from characters being specialists in their own field, working together to achieve a common goal. If everyone can do everything, nobody needs to rely on anyone else to achieve that goal and cooperation is not necessary . Thus, niche abilities lead to it being a cooperative game experience .

In my days of 4e, we called these "roles."

 

[tetrasodium]

As far as the concept of 'niche protection' is concerned... the way that D&D has currently set themselves is that most characters can have the opportunity to do anything, but that some classes/characters are more focused on it and have a much easier time with it. Which is I think the best way to go-- if you want something done very, very well... having a PC of a certain class will accomplish it. But if no one ends up playing that class, you can still get the job taken care of by someone else. They won't be the best possible player at it (some might uncharitably say ;overpowered' at it), but they can still get the job done as needed.

That's why any PC can have the opportunity to gain proficiency in Thieves' Tools to open locks and disarm traps (even though Rogues have additional abilities that make them better at it)... and why any PC can have the opportunity to have healing magic (even though Clerics and the Life Cleric specifically have additional abilities that make them better at it.) A party can cover almost all the standard adventuring party bases regardless of the classes people choose, just with the right selection of backgrounds, subclasses, feats and so forth. Each class still have a 'niche' of what part of the standard adventuring bases they are best suited for and can absolutely be the go-to for the party when it comes up... but they aren't required to be there.

I do not foresee a time where WotC returns D&D to the design space where only one class can cover a very important adventuring base and if you don't have that class in the party then that base cannot be covered in any way, shape, or form. That is an unnecessary protection of a so-called 'niche' that would ruin the distribution of class selection and no gain the game anything worthwhile.

No it's more than just characters having the opportunity. 5e kept going and ensured that the group was almost certain to be able to do it with the idea of failure risk or opportunity cost being improbable.

The result is that all but the smallest of groups and those deliberately planning to create a problem for themselves are likely to have multiple PCs with players who can say "oh I'm proficient in that too, I want to try too". It might sound nice for saving the day in some clutch situation, but it instead ensures that no situation will ever approach the horizon where such a distant situational speck remains.

That goes well beyond the overly condensed skills and the overly success weighted dc ladder to include the gold star "this is my thing" that the various classes should be proud of... Hard to feel good about being a tanky type when it's improbable that anyone is capable of feeling squishy.... Hard to feel good about monstrous damage output when it doesn't really matter... Hard to feel excited about your ability to act as a force multiplier for the group with buffs debuffs and control when the monsters are tuned to be pushovers for extreme self inflicted ineptitude stormwind builds & nobody notices it enough to care. Hard to feel awesome for your ability to heal and protect your allies when the most powerful healing spell is a super accessible first level one that is built to exploit bad design in order to maximally nullify damage by providing minimal healing to near unkillable PCs at minimal cost... etc

 

[DEFCON 1]

No it's more than just characters having the opportunity. 5e kept going and ensured that the group was almost certain to be able to do it with the idea of failure risk or opportunity cost being improbable.

The result is that all but the smallest of groups and those deliberately planning to create a problem for themselves are likely to have multiple PCs with players who can say "oh I'm proficient in that too, I want to try too". It might sound nice for saving the day in some clutch situation, but it instead ensures that no situation will ever approach the horizon where such a distant situational speck remains.

That goes well beyond the overly condensed skills and the overly success weighted dc ladder to include the gold star "this is my thing" that the various classes should be proud of... Hard to feel good about being a tanky type when it's improbable that anyone is capable of feeling squishy.... Hard to feel good about monstrous damage output when it doesn't really matter... Hard to feel excited about your ability to act as a force multiplier for the group with buffs debuffs and control when the monsters are tuned to be pushovers for extreme self inflicted ineptitude stormwind builds & nobody notices it enough to care. Hard to feel awesome for your ability to heal and protect your allies when the most powerful healing spell is a super accessible first level one that is built to exploit bad design in order to maximally nullify damage by providing minimal healing to near unkillable PCs at minimal cost... etc

Well, needless to say at least at the tables I sit at, the game is not contingent on mechanics to the point where all PCs being "pretty good" at most stuff rather than one PC being great and everyone else sucking at a certain thing is a cause for alarm. Others play and enjoy differently obviously. But what you speak on sounds like the hallmarks and foundation of 3rd edition rather than 5th-- where players could find every single benny, feature, feat, and ability across all the books to create a PC that was nigh unstoppable with one particular game mechanical thing, and that became their defining "character trait"... they were the "open locks" guy or "never fell unconscious" person. Which is fine if that's your thing, but I find those traits to be meh myself. So I'm fine keep that ruleset over there in 3rd Ed and PF and not trying to morph 5E into it.

 

[Maxperson]

Four classes --arguably 3 -- are staples of D&D fantasy. The rest you can do with "package deals" or whatever. There is a world of space between complete point buy GURPS model and rigid 5E class structure.

Not in 5e you can't. The design space that they left subclasses is tiny. 5 abilities over 17 levels simply isn't enough to turn a fighter into a ranger or paladin, or a cleric into a paladin. In 3e where you had 10 level prestige classes and could give multiple abilities per level if you wanted, you could theoretically accomplish that goal. I'd still prefer separate classes, but at least you'd get enough differentiation. For 5e, though, you need the different classes.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow, that’s a lot of words to say . . . I’m not really sure what, to be honest. I’m not certain that bringing up your own D&D knockoff contributes much to our One D&D discussion. Also, I’ve never played Breath of the Wind, so that segment didn’t really land with me. But I do know it’s a 1 player game, so it doesn’t really apply to my argument that niche protection leads to cooperation.

I will say, I can’t help thinking about heist movies (maybe because of KftGV). Take a movie like Ocean’s Eleven: if Danny Ocean is good at acrobatics, they wouldn’t have needed The Amazing Yen. If Rusty Ryan knew about explosives, they wouldn’t have needed Basher Tarr. But each member had their pros (niches) and cons that allowed them to pull off the heist when they worked together (cooperation).

EDIT: spoiler alert for a 22 year old movie

And yet the Seven Samurai and Kung Fu movies with multiple protagonists that are all great at Kung Fu do very well. As do Star Wars movies with multiple Jedi. For every example of a movie or book with niche protection, there's one that doesn't have it where it works out just as well.

Niche protection is a personal preference not something that is required to make a game good or fun. I'd prefer that the game not force such protections on us and let us decide for ourselves if we are going to protect a niche or not.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, needless to say at least at the tables I sit at, the game is not contingent on mechanics to the point where all PCs being "pretty good" at most stuff rather than one PC being great and everyone else sucking at a certain thing is a cause for alarm. Others play and enjoy differently obviously. But what you speak on sounds like the hallmarks and foundation of 3rd edition rather than 5th-- where players could find every single benny, feature, feat, and ability across all the books to create a PC that was nigh unstoppable with one particular game mechanical thing, and that became their defining "character trait"... they were the "open locks" guy or "never fell unconscious" person. Which is fine if that's your thing, but I find those traits to be meh myself. So I'm fine keep that ruleset over there in 3rd Ed and PF and not trying to morph 5E into it.

Sounds like you are defending 5e's shortcomings by citing work that your gm(or you) have done to homebrew a more cohesive fix in from a system like pbta or fate. That's not a strength

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sounds like you are defending 5e's shortcomings by citing work that your gm(or you) have done to homebrew a more cohesive fix in from a system like pbta or fate. That's not a strength

And playing a game exactly as written to your own detriment is not a strength either.

 

[Emberashh]

That goes well beyond the overly condensed skills and the overly success weighted dc ladder to include the gold star "this is my thing" that the various classes should be proud of... Hard to feel good about being a tanky type when it's improbable that anyone is capable of feeling squishy.... Hard to feel good about monstrous damage output when it doesn't really matter... Hard to feel excited about your ability to act as a force multiplier for the group with buffs debuffs and control when the monsters are tuned to be pushovers for extreme self inflicted ineptitude stormwind builds & nobody notices it enough to care. Hard to feel awesome for your ability to heal and protect your allies when the most powerful healing spell is a super accessible first level one that is built to exploit bad design in order to maximally nullify damage by providing minimal healing to near unkillable PCs at minimal cost... etc

None of these issues are rooted in niches not being protected.