The Niche Protection Poll

[Ahnehnois]

In post 31 you suggested that some of those who didn't like a PF-style UMD rogue didn't like it because of niche protection issues.

That's one possible reason, and the one that was initially raised, in a ludicrously incoherent argument, by someone else.

This may well be true of PF. It is not true of D&D in general.

And indeed this is one of my points here in this thread. Different versions of D&D treat niches differently. 2e breaks them to some extent, 3e more so, 3.5 more so, and PF even more. That's part of the "new school" direction of D&D. I would expect some people are not on board with that, which is fine.

 

[steeldragons]

Disclaimer: Haven't read the thread yet. Just voted and commenting now. So, if these comments have already been discussed/covered, no worries, I'll see them when I go back to read after this.

I was torn between options 2 and 3. I ultimately voted 3 since it sounded like it kinda included the "groups get unique abilities" option...but I don't have trouble with some classes getting their own thing...or rather, I expect that individual classes will have their own exclusive abilities in addition to some of those shared with the class group/subclasses.

That is to say, just a few examples of what I'm thinking/meaning would look something like this...
"Warrior" classes (Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, etc.) get X HD, all weapon options, and "unique" abilities like [not definitive or talking about any particular edition, just hypothetical examples] Extra Attacks: level # attacks v. 1HD creatures, Multi-attacks: extra attack per round every X levels, "Charge" attack, Athletics skill.

Then, within the Warrior classes: Fighters might also have A, B & C abilities. Barbarians don't get A or C but have B and an exclusive D. Paladins have A, not B-D, but their E, F & G (where, say, F might overlap with a cleric ability but they are the only Warrior class that can do that.).

The "[arcane] Magic-user/Mage/Wizard" classes have Y HD, limited weapon options, and of course their "group exclusives": Arcane Lore/training skill, arcane spell use, magic resistance, etc. With individual classes having some alterations, as above: "Wizard" mages have the abilities K, L, M. The Sorcerers have K & L, but swap out M for O and P. Warlocks get, maybe, K like Wizards, O like Sorcerers & Q instead.

I'd say as long as the general amount of abilities are roughly equivalent (in number, relative power, limitations swapped in for additional powers, etc...) it's all good.

So, yeah, each group has their collective "own things" and then the individual classes have their separate abilities [What makes me a Paladin and not a Fighter...or Cleric? What makes me a Warlock and not a Wizard or Thief? etc...]

 

[1of3]

Does the term "class" imply an exclusive niche? Vote away.

Obviously it doesn't. Otherwise the voting would be meaningless. It's also incredible hard to describe what "class" means in RPGs. The only pertinant answer is the type of character you play. Classes are the primary answer, when asked: "What character do you play?"

That doesn't actually lead to niche protection, even if the class has exclusive abilities. Imagine two people playing the same class.

It follows that niche protection only works if the players cooperate in establishing it. Classes can help in this negotiation, even if they have no rules to tied them at all. Imagine a Shadowrun group. A player might say: "I'll be the Decker." You immediatley know what to expect, even though there are no formal classes in the game at all.

The archetypes in Shadowrun are in a way even more reliable than D&D's classes. That is because, if you do not know an archetype in Shadowrun fitting your character, you will probably try to communicate whatever your idea is. In D&D, fellow players might look at the character sheet and, having read the character class, do not even bother to ask.

But classes can serve other purposes, too. They can be starting points for imagining a future character. World of Darkness games are prime example. When you choose a clan or tribe or whatever, you can either play it straight or subvert it. Like you can play your Ventrue as ambitious upper class person or do the opposite. And community will not expect all Ventrue to by typical Ventrue. That would be boring.

The problem is that in D&D these too functions, helping in niche protection and establishing a baseline character to maybe deviate from, are conflated. WotC tried to adress this problem in 4e by establishing roles (Striker, Leader, Defender, Controller). That immediately changed the discourse in the community. Now, people were asking how to make good Leaders, Defenders etc. It didn't generally improve the discourse.

There is a game, though, that does a good job in establishing niche protection via classes: Old School Hack. The rules are this:
[*] If you choose a class, no other player may do so. (Don't be a dick about it.)
[*] Each level you get a class ability.
[*] You may choose abilities from classes other than your own, but you can never have more cross-class abilities than abilities from your own.
[*] When a player plays the class that you want to take a cross-class ability from, you have get permission before taking the ability.

That actually works because it doesn't consider niche protection as fait accompli but as a form of negotiation. If the player who has a certain class ability on the list, but doesn't want it, and you think it's really necessary or fitting for your character, you can just ask.

 

[Lanefan]

Disclaimer: Haven't read the thread yet. Just voted and commenting now. So, if these comments have already been discussed/covered, no worries, I'll see them when I go back to read after this.

I was torn between options 2 and 3. I ultimately voted 3 since it sounded like it kinda included the "groups get unique abilities" option...but I don't have trouble with some classes getting their own thing...or rather, I expect that individual classes will have their own exclusive abilities in addition to some of those shared with the class group/subclasses.

That is to say, just a few examples of what I'm thinking/meaning would look something like this...
"Warrior" classes (Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, etc.) get X HD, all weapon options, and "unique" abilities like [not definitive or talking about any particular edition, just hypothetical examples] Extra Attacks: level # attacks v. 1HD creatures, Multi-attacks: extra attack per round every X levels, "Charge" attack, Athletics skill.

Then, within the Warrior classes: Fighters might also have A, B & C abilities. Barbarians don't get A or C but have B and an exclusive D. Paladins have A, not B-D, but their E, F & G (where, say, F might overlap with a cleric ability but they are the only Warrior class that can do that.).

The "[arcane] Magic-user/Mage/Wizard" classes have Y HD, limited weapon options, and of course their "group exclusives": Arcane Lore/training skill, arcane spell use, magic resistance, etc. With individual classes having some alterations, as above: "Wizard" mages have the abilities K, L, M. The Sorcerers have K & L, but swap out M for O and P. Warlocks get, maybe, K like Wizards, O like Sorcerers & Q instead.

I'd say as long as the general amount of abilities are roughly equivalent (in number, relative power, limitations swapped in for additional powers, etc...) it's all good.

So, yeah, each group has their collective "own things" and then the individual classes have their separate abilities [What makes me a Paladin and not a Fighter...or Cleric? What makes me a Warlock and not a Wizard or Thief? etc...]

This is very well put; much better than I could explain it.

However, the usual and inevitable problem arises when some bozo wants to play a Wizard with abilities K and M but swap out ability L for Fighter ability A; or worse, keep all the Wizard abilities and tack A on as an extra. If this is allowed (or even encouraged ) by the system then bang goes the class-based game. But if it's not allowed then the whining begins, sounding very much like "the system won't support my character concept!".

I don't envy the designers here, as they have to build a game that can somehow make everyone at least vaguely happy.

Lan-"my character concept involves repeated violent application of a longsword to the faces of those who would be my enemy"-efan

 

[Hussar]

That's one possible reason, and the one that was initially raised, in a ludicrously incoherent argument, by someone else.

And indeed this is one of my points here in this thread. Different versions of D&D treat niches differently. 2e breaks them to some extent, 3e more so, 3.5 more so, and PF even more. That's part of the "new school" direction of D&D. I would expect some people are not on board with that, which is fine.

I'm curious why you say that 2e breaks niche. Take a thief for example. No one can open locks (well, without smashing them) other than a thief and the only way your character could gain this ability would be to abandon your current class entirely until your thief level exceeded your starting class.

And no non human could do this at all.

Only fighters get weapon specs. Full stop.

On and on. Classes are extremely rigidly protected in 2e.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm curious why you say that 2e breaks niche.

Less so than 3e as I mentioned, but we do have a number of those hybrid classes (rangers and bards getting some thief skills, those classes plus paladins getting some spells) as well as kits that sometimes radically changed a class to something outside its traditional role. Both of which are predicates to the new hybrid classes and the ACFs and archetypes that have become de rigeur through 3e and PF.

There are also a number of useful things that are shared from the get-go. Extreme strength and weapon specialization (the first bit, anyway) and bonus hp for Con are shared through the warriors. The spell lists of different casters overlap to an extent. NWPs are the same for everyone IIRC.

I came in at the end of 2e's lifespan, but it appears to me in retrospect that the niches were incrementally broken down over its lifespan. Certainly, people who really knew all the kits could make characters that, at the time, just felt wrong to me.

 

[steeldragons]

NWPs are the same for everyone IIRC.

Just a small nit...that doesn't really change what you're saying...in 2e there was a list of "General" NWP that anyone could take, but each class grouping (Warriors, Rogues, Priests and Mages) had their own NWP class lists to choose from. Some of these had overlap (both Priests & Mages could take things like Ancient History and a few other lores, for example, iirc). But for the most part they were separate options in line with the traditional roles/archetypes of the class group.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just a small nit...that doesn't really change what you're saying...in 2e there was a list of "General" NWP that anyone could take, but each class grouping (Warriors, Rogues, Priests and Mages) had their own NWP class lists to choose from.

Makes sense. Not my area of expertise, obviously. You're right that it doesn't really change my underlying point though. 2e definitely feels a lot less niche protected than the '70's books hiding in my friend's parents' attic.

 

[Derren]

I have yet to see any good reasons for classes. All they do is to restrict players. Archetypes like in Shadowrun are enough to explain the character system to new players, but for the most part I assume that a RPG player is invested enough in the game so that he doesn't need the rulebook to explain his character to him.

And as this certainly will come up as an answer, no I do not consider "every character must be combat effective and classes make sure of that" a valid answer as I disagree with the premise.

 

[steeldragons]

I have yet to see any good reasons for classes.

You mean other than, "D&D is a class-based game?"

All they do is to restrict players.

No. What they do is give players a framework to design in. 5e, in particular, is going to have a bevy [a whole BEVY, I tell ya!] of ways to customize your character and still keep it in that class-based framework.

There are loads of games that don't have class-based character design. I can not, for the life of me, understand why there is this cry that, "because I saw it in this other game, I should be able to do it in D&D." Go play that other game!!! If that's what's fun for you, BULLY! Have at it! I want everyone to have as much fun playing games as they want. That does not mean that because "XYZ RPG doesn't do it" D&D should follow suit!

(sorry for all the "!" but this is something that just burns my britches. Pet peeve, if you will.)

Archetypes like in Shadowrun are enough to explain the character system to new players,

That's great! That's Shadowrun. Play that.

but for the most part I assume that a RPG player is invested enough in the game so that he doesn't need the rulebook to explain his character to him.

And how does a class-based system do that in ways that other games don't? I am no afficionando of computer games, but do not a lot of them designate someone as a "tank" or a "healer" or a "mage/spellcaster"? Then let you add armor and weapons and loads of stuff that is available to anyone? Is making your character a "tank" not adhering to a class/archetype/motif/style of character and play?

And as this certainly will come up as an answer, no I do not consider "every character must be combat effective and classes make sure of that" a valid answer as I disagree with the premise.

As do I. In a class-based...or non-class-based, for that matter...system there can and should certainly be character concepts available that are not "combat effective." Particularly for 5e in which they have made a concerted effort to establish combat, exploration, and interaction as the "3 pillars" of game play.