D&D 5E (2014) The case for niche protection

[MechaPilot]

I'm not going to say that the discussion back in the day, "Who is making what class? Do we have a cleric" never happened. In fact, it happened a lot. However, if no one wanted to make a cleric and the other players forced a player to do so, that's jerk players, not the game.

Yeah, it was players being jerks; we both agree on that. The next part is where you and I deviate.

I also disagree about game assumptions. Why? Because if you actually look at the mechanics of the game, combat was supposed to be avoided in the first place. Not only is this provable from things like not getting much XP for monster kills but most of it from treasure, getting XP from the monsters for "defeating" the encounter which includes avoiding it altogether, the fragility of PCs, the multitude of deadly monster traits (save or die poison, level drain, etc), but in the DMG it outright tells you that combat is a last resort when "all else has failed".

So the actual game assumptions tell you to stay out of combat in the first place. I understand a lot of player ignored that assumption and looked for combat, and thus felt like they did in fact need a cleric. But that goes back to player choices, not how the game was actually assumed to be played.

There is plenty of evidence that combat was supposed to be a last resort for players. However, it was often supposed to be the first resort for monsters. When nearly everything wants to kill you and there is only one class that can heal, the game is promoting the notion of "Hey, you should have one of these if you actually want to survive." This is especially so in cases where other options were rough roads to take. A first level Thief was quite fragile, but also so inexperienced at stealth that she only had 10% and 15% chances to hide and move silently (respectively). And with poisons doing HP damage, even sneaking and exploring could make you want a healer around if you fail a save or two.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not going to say that the discussion back in the day, "Who is making what class? Do we have a cleric" never happened. In fact, it happened a lot. However, if no one wanted to make a cleric and the other players forced a player to do so, that's jerk players, not the game.

If they weren't jerks, one of them would have jumped on the cleric grenade instead of inflicting it on the new player, sure. But if no one did, the new player would still have been treated to a poor first play experience for want of that vital heal-bot function...

I also disagree about game assumptions. Why? Because if you actually look at the mechanics of the game, combat was supposed to be avoided in the first place.

The game spilled a lot of ink on combat rules, and the 1e AD&D cleric got a big upgrade in 1st-level-spell-casting ability to provide more of those vital Cure Light Wound spells. Combat-phobic exploration may be a perfectly legitimate style, but it's not one that I saw much embraced back in the day, and was one that several classes were distinctly unsuited for (indeed, it'd be more the domain of the extremely odd all-Thief party, something I only saw down once back in the day - and only because I ran it... for 5 levels, before the players gave up and reverted to a more 'normal' party composition).

OTOH, the campaign that grew into also saw distaste for the Cleric vanish when I added variant spell lists for Clerics based on deity - and, even more so, when we got a hold of the CPH for 2e, with spheres & granted powers. There's nothing like customization to make a class more appealing... In a sense, in that campaign, greater character definition became the Cleric (2e Priest, really) class 'niche.'

 

[MechaPilot]

They never heard of Brother Justin Case, the NPC cleric who tags along with you?

It wasn't so much that they'd never heard of him as they didn't like him. The DM said that he didn't want to run the cleric because he had to run all the other NPCs already. The other players didn't want to further dilute the Xp they'd earn. And they had a new member of the group who they could try to bully into playing a healbot cleric.

 

[MechaPilot]

Sounds more like jerk players being jerks.

It's not a one or the other situation. Yes, they were jerks. But, I can understand why they felt they needed a cleric so badly, even if I disagree with their choice to push me into playing one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The game spilled a lot of ink on combat rules,.'

Every time this topic comes up, you repeat the same debunked argument that combat was a focus because of page count devoted to the rules. You know that is a fallacy, and have been explained to as to why it's a fallacy, and yet it's your go-to response every time. That seems a bit disingenuous to me.

 

[Xetheral]

Yes I did. It destroys their agency. If I know when I have a round peg there will always be a round hole I don't need to do anything.

Can you please elaborate on how protecting unfilled niches increases player agency? If the niche in question isn't present in the party, I don't understand whose agency you think you're increasing by including, e.g., an arcana check in a party without anyone trained in arcana (or intelligent enough to make up for the lack of proficiency). From my perspective, an option that cannot be explored isn't really an option at all.

I also don't understand what you mean by the second sentence in the quote above. If one has the tools capable of completing a certain task (whether DM-imposed or PC-initiated), one is able to complete that task, and now has to chose how to and whether to complete that task. That's the opposite of not "need[ing] to do anything". By contrast, if one doesn't have the tools capable of completing a certain task, then, by definition, one don't have any choices to make at all with regards to that task.

I run published adventures. They are written. People make characters. They face challenges. They can approach those challenges however they want. This is because they have agency. I don't change those challenges to fit the players or characters.

Being able to fail is important. If you want to call that 'closing off a campaign path' then sure. I even allow TPKs to happen. Because I want choices to matter.

I run custom campaigns in a custom campaign world, usually in a semi-sandbox format. The players have agency because they can interact with the world in whatever way they choose, and the world reacts to those actions. If my players enjoy politics, I'll include more politics. If my players like to interact with potential hostiles, I'll reduce the number of mindless opponents. If my players love AoE spells, I'll include more minions suitable for roasting with Fireball.

None of that customization in any way precludes failure. Customization of content is separate from selecting the difficulty level. The difficulty in my games is largely set organically by what follows naturally from the description of the game world and the choices of the PCs. Thus, the PC's often have a good notion of how difficult a given option will be, and can make their decisions accordingly. If they choose to take the dangerous/risky path, it's suitably dangerous/risky, but I'll still do my utmost to design that path so that it's fun, taking into account the players' interests and the characters' abilities.

I said nothing about closing off campaign paths.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the bolded portion of the quote below. What do you mean by "you don't get to explore that option" if not closing off a possible campaign path?

I'm against DMs changing things based on character choices. There might be a great chance for an Arcana check, but if no one is around who can do it then you don't get to explore that option. I see that as niche protection. If someone chose to play a character like that they would be shining.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Every time this topic comes up, you repeat the same debunked argument that combat was a focus because of page count devoted to the rules. You know that is a fallacy, and have been explained to as to why it's a fallacy, and yet it's your go-to response every time. That seems a bit disingenuous to me.

There was a long-standing criticsm of D&D, and RPGs in general, being 'violent games' or 'all about combat,' with the high page count devoted to combat cited as evidence for that. It was an extreme kind of claim, suggesting the game could only be played one way, and yes, citing the page count that way in no way proved it. What's been debunked is the 'all about combat' claim, not the fact that the game has extensive combat rules.

D&D is not all about combat, nor is it all about avoiding combat.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

In some editions of D&D, an adventuring party is likely to need a Cleric even if they avoid combat religiously. (See what I did there?) Adventures are hazardous: traps, falls, natural disasters, disease, harsh weather, and vermin (rot grubs, ear seekers, green slime, etc.) all take their toll, depending on how much grief the DM wants to throw at the PCs.