In my second design notes video about Baptism of Fire, I talk about character classes, and how to craft them to provide Niche Protection.
#dnd    #ttrpg    #osr 

Good video. I have always thought that classes did not mix well with a big overarching skill system. I like the concept of niche protection and the sense that classes should have unique abilities that members of other classes can't just pick up a la carte. I don't care for some modern systems that make every class good at combat in different ways, yet still feature a class called fighter or warrior. I think that those design choices are part of what makes people view fighters as a lackluster class. If everyone fights well, then the fighter doesn't really have a place. I am pleased to hear that Baptism of Fire recognizes this, and makes the fighter class actually the best overall class pertaining to combat.

Meh to niche protection. But Jon Stater has a good philosophy, if you can't come up with 9 level titles for a class, it probably shouldn't be one.

Seems like a reasonably good mix of niche protection and general capabilities, just from the comparison of the fighter to the holy warrior and witch hunter, for example.  To me, the key bit is the fighter's horsemanship and what you discussed about swapping that out, since it provides a potentially non-niche thing the fighter can easily get.  When talking class balance, there's also the balance between how niche and how general--especially important when mixing classes and "skills". 

Also interesting bit on how you are doing skills. 

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 16, 2024, 02:49:49 PMGood video. I have always thought that classes did not mix well with a big overarching skill system. I like the concept of niche protection and the sense that classes should have unique abilities that members of other classes can't just pick up a la carte. I don't care for some modern systems that make every class good at combat in different ways, yet still feature a class called fighter or warrior. I think that those design choices are part of what makes people view fighters as a lackluster class. If everyone fights well, then the fighter doesn't really have a place. I am pleased to hear that Baptism of Fire recognizes this, and makes the fighter class actually the best overall class pertaining to combat.

Precisely. I quite like fighters, and its one of the flaws of so many D&D games and D&D-variants that fighters get massively overshadowed.

I made it a point in all my games to make certain that this doesn't happen.

Quote from: JeremyR on June 16, 2024, 04:14:28 PMMeh to niche protection. But Jon Stater has a good philosophy, if you can't come up with 9 level titles for a class, it probably shouldn't be one.

LOL. In a Medieval authentic game, "level titles" would make no sense.

But as for in other games, I like how in DCC there's only titles for the first five levels, but then there's a big table of level titles by class in the appendix. Obviously, in Last Sun we have all characters from level 6 onward get a random new title.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 16, 2024, 07:02:59 PMSeems like a reasonably good mix of niche protection and general capabilities, just from the comparison of the fighter to the holy warrior and witch hunter, for example.  To me, the key bit is the fighter's horsemanship and what you discussed about swapping that out, since it provides a potentially non-niche thing the fighter can easily get.  When talking class balance, there's also the balance between how niche and how general--especially important when mixing classes and "skills". 

Also interesting bit on how you are doing skills. 

Balance becomes more precarious (and niche protection goes out the window) if you have multi-classing. That's why my games don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 17, 2024, 09:18:00 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 16, 2024, 07:02:59 PMSeems like a reasonably good mix of niche protection and general capabilities, just from the comparison of the fighter to the holy warrior and witch hunter, for example.  To me, the key bit is the fighter's horsemanship and what you discussed about swapping that out, since it provides a potentially non-niche thing the fighter can easily get.  When talking class balance, there's also the balance between how niche and how general--especially important when mixing classes and "skills". 

Also interesting bit on how you are doing skills. 

Balance becomes more precarious (and niche protection goes out the window) if you have multi-classing. That's why my games don't.

I'd argue from a OSR perspective multiclassing did very little to harm niche-protection, given a 4th level fighter magic-user mix was not as good as a 4th level pure fighter at fighting, or a 4th level magic user at magic. or in the case of a combined class such as how Basic Fantasy does it, you have to pay for the XP of both classes to level up, meaning the rest of the party could easily be a good 3 levels ahead of you, giving the same effect.

amusingly in this same vein despite no explicit rules for it, L&D and by extension BOF have the most easily multi-class-able classes I've seen in any OSR game, given it's as simple as rolling on the benefits chart, and keeping track of class level.

It's not like a lot of other games where most of the benefits are front loaded on 1st-level version of the class.

Hell I even thought about writing up a quasi-class article for L&D.

It's true that L&D could easily lend itself to multi-classing. The combination of the advancement tables and the fact that there's only a single XP track do that.

And I also understand what you're saying about multiclassing not being as advantageous as sticking with one class, though that isn't so much about niche protection as optimization. The problem is that when you multiclass, whether or not the system is such that actually makes multiclassing sub-optimal, when you multiclass you're by default no longer in a niche. It means every wizard could get a little bit of combat, every fighter could get a little bit of magic, etc. The archetypal nature of class is diminished.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 18, 2024, 10:13:41 AMIt's true that L&D could easily lend itself to multi-classing. The combination of the advancement tables and the fact that there's only a single XP track do that.

And I also understand what you're saying about multiclassing not being as advantageous as sticking with one class, though that isn't so much about niche protection as optimization. The problem is that when you multiclass, whether or not the system is such that actually makes multiclassing sub-optimal, when you multiclass you're by default no longer in a niche. It means every wizard could get a little bit of combat, every fighter could get a little bit of magic, etc. The archetypal nature of class is diminished.

I think multi-classing sits in a strange spot for the designer, in that it can often go one of two routes:

1. The designer doesn't really consider how it will work but tacks it on at the end.  Or least doesn't fully think it through.  (An example is the 3E design, where mechanically they had an answer, but they didn't design the classes themselves to work well in that space.)

2. The designer does plan it out. However, this creates a negative feedback loop for the designer, which will likely water down or even eliminate the niche protection. 

It's not as if either one of those paths are guaranteed outcomes.  A careful, crafty designer can navigate them.  They are pitfalls that need to be navigated.

Excluding all multi-classing upfront takes the pitfalls off the table.  What I did in my design is specifically carve out "class" for niche protection (and almost nothing else) and built a "path" mechanic that was separate--specifically for what multi-classing normally covers.  Every character is single class/multi-path by definition (after a few levels, anyway).  It's not the only reason, but doing it this way did help me focus on exactly what niche protection I wanted to have.