The Niche Protection Poll

[steeldragons]

There is a certain wish fulfillment aspect of D&D; it's not out of line to want to play larger than life characters. But okay, you do sometimes have to make choices. However, I think some versions of D&D's class system have done a better job of capturing those choices than others.

No argument there.

You can get all that without classes as well though. Sometimes even more so. I frequently find in modern/future games...

Annnnd, I'm gonna stop you right there. That's those games. Those systems. And that's WONDERFUL...for those games/systems. Give me one reason why "bescause they do it D&D should too."

With more flexible character creation systems, it's so easy for players to gimp themselves that I have to very carefully disseminate what I expect of them to guide their choices.

That would seem to be a reason to not play those systems.

Even so, those choices end up being very impactful.

I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning why that should, then, become something for D&D?

You really do not see the difference between every character being able to become trained in horse archery during levelup and every character being able to shoot from the back of a horse with good accuracy?

I've reread this several times...and no. I see no difference here. If they're trained in horse archery...why can't they shoot from the back of a horse with good accuracy?

Classless systems allow for the former, but when the party is on the run from the warg horde, only the ones which actually spend their resources on horse archery can shoot back while they ride away from them.

Why would that be? Both have horse archery. And every character can do that...I'm clearly missing/misunderstanding something.

How are two characters with the same class different?

Seriously? Is this serious question or should I be reading it as sarcasm? I've had a [Caution: hyperbole coming] HUNDREDS of mage characters, rogue characters, cleric characters...ok, maybe only dozen or so Fighter characters, but still...ALL of them are different characters. Personalities. Fighting styles/tactical preferences. Spell choices that lead to different styles of play/character concept. Deity choices (which lead to spell and RP choices) that lead to different styles of play. I have NO problem whatsoever making different characters...even if almost all of the abilitiy & skill choices are the same. THAT'S playing a ROLE-playing game. My character is not my class. He/she may be largely dictated as to what he/she can do. But the characters are HARDly "the same." I have no problem whatsoever imagining "two characters with the same class" being vastly different.

Me as player being able to do things opposed to a writer is to me the difference between playing an RPG and reading a book. So yeah, I do consider it quite an important part of RPGs.
Ease of player entry? Archetypes provide the same benefit without being restrictive.

I think we will just agree to disagree here. As with practically everything in D&D, it's a matter of preference and play style. I will not see the attributes of your preferences and play style as "better"...and you won't see mine as "better." And that's OK!

 

[Derren]

I've reread this several times...and no. I see no difference here. If they're trained in horse archery...why can't they shoot from the back of a horse with good accuracy?

Thats the point. Some are not trained in it. They just had the option to train it unrestricted by a class choice made at character creation. But unless they spend limited resources on something they can't do it just because there are no classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Annnnd, I'm gonna stop you right there. That's those games. Those systems. And that's WONDERFUL...for those games/systems. Give me one reason why "bescause they do it D&D should too."

Same system. CoC d20 isn't that different from D&D.

That would seem to be a reason to not play those systems.

Not under your "consequences" mantra above. I like that you can choose to play a completely noncombatant character, I just think it requires some more active thought to play a game where this is the case. The kind of thought I want people doing when I'm playing D&D: thoughts about "what if".

 

[Hussar]

If you want to play classless D&D, why not play Savage Worlds? I mean, that's pretty much it right there. IIRC, there are Savage hacks out there for playing exactly this.

To me, classes absolutely should have specific abilities that no one else gets. That doesn't mean that every ability has to be specific to one class, but, each class should get something. So, sure, the ranger gets a couple of thief abilities - stealth in 2e IIRC (hide in shadows and move silently) but the only class that gets Open Locks is the thief. Sure, a bard might get a couple of cleric spells in 3e, but, clerics certainly don't get inspiring song. Wizards get fireball and magic missile.

Even in 4e, niche protection is pretty strong. The comment was made that all leaders heal exactly the same way. That's not true. An alchemist, for example, has to "charge up" healing by getting characters to sacrifice healing surges before hand and can then spend those in different ways depending on different powers. Which is completely different from a Warlord. A cleric's healing word and a Warlord's are pretty different in play as well. Never minding the fact that clerics get surgeless healing and warlords don't.

I'm a pretty big tent kind of guy, but, even I wouldn't recognise classless D&D as actually being D&D. It shocks me, to be honest, to see the most strident 4e critics like Derren and Ahnehnois claim that a better D&D would be classless.

To be fair though, if you look at the poll, 2/3rds consider niche protection to be pretty important.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you want to play classless D&D, why not play Savage Worlds?

Because it's not D&D. And of course it has its own issues.

I'm a pretty big tent kind of guy, but, even I wouldn't recognise classless D&D as actually being D&D. It shocks me, to be honest, to see the most strident 4e critics like Derren and Ahnehnois claim that a better D&D would be classless.

To be strict, I'd say that a classless D&D would be better. A better D&D wouldn't have to be classless. I haven't ditched them from my game yet, after all. I just think they're more sacred cows then pillars of roleplaying.

To be fair though, if you look at the poll, 2/3rds consider niche protection to be pretty important.

Not that surprising, but also kind of hypocritical. The first option I wrote is something that hasn't existed at least since AD&D; wherein there are many classes that share abilities and several hybrid classes. Even 4e is not that restrictive. So that makes me wonder where exactly people get this idea that niche protection is part of the game or important on that level; they didn't get it from playing the game itself.

Unless of course, they're all hearkening back to something older than that where there were only a couple of classes and they really were distinct. Quite a reach from where we are today.

 

[Lanefan]

I have yet to see any good reasons for classes. All they do is to restrict players.

To some, this is a bug. To others, it's a feature; and a good one.

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.

That's a bi-i-ig assumption. I assume a RPG player is invested enough to show up to the game every week, as I am, and will know her character as a character rather than as a set of rule interactions. Those can be looked up in the rulebooks when (hopefully not frequently) required.

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.

Neither do I. In fact, I maintain the opposite is true: that in a solidly-designed class-based system some characters will intentionally *not* be as combat-effective as others in some or all situations; but instead will shine at other times.

Lanefan

 

[Starfox]

T frequently find in modern/future games that when I give players very open-ended prompts, they'll come back with characters that have virtually no fighting ability, or none of some other really important commodity. It's pretty hard to do that in D&D classes, where some basic level of competency is enforced. With more flexible character creation systems, it's so easy for players to gimp themselves that I have to very carefully disseminate what I expect of them to guide their choices. Even so, those choices end up being very impactful.

I find that this is the major effect of a class system. That is, the class sets a minimum amount of competence as well as a maximum one. In 3E, even a wizard gains 1/2 BAB and 1d4 hit points - you are not allowed to spend less than that on combat ability. A cleric has 2 skill points per level - you are not allowed to spend less than that on skills. A fighter at lvl 20 has +6 Will save - you are not allowed to spend less than that on spell defenses. 4E went further on skills - every character increased all skills by one point every other level. The way we play Pathfinder, with lots of archetypes and other customization options, I feel the minimum investment is just as important as the maximum investment. In a point bye system, a wizard may spend nothing on physical attack skills, and never ever make a physical attack. This can create a problem when the GM assumes a certain baseline competence. Say a barroom brawl, where the use of any weapon or spell is overkill. I feel this is an advantage to class systems.

 

[Bluenose]

Same system. CoC d20 isn't that different from D&D.

On the other hand, my CoC-fan friends say the D20 version really isn't much like CoC. And I'd say exactly the same about T20, which really never managed to seem like playing Traveller instead of 3e in a SF setting.

Neither do I. In fact, I maintain the opposite is true: that in a solidly-designed class-based system some characters will intentionally *not* be as combat-effective as others in some or all situations; but instead will shine at other times.

That requires discipline from the designers not to provide more and more magic spells/items that allow the characters with access to those to shine any time they want to. Given that Forgotten Realms is the first setting and the apparent desire to provide plenty of support for settings, I don't see that happening. FR is probably the least likely setting for restricting magic that D&D has ever provided, and I'm including Eberron's magitech society in that.

 

[Tuft]

In a point bye system, a wizard will spend nothing on physical attack skills, because there's no incentive to do so and hell never ever make a physical attack. This can create a problem when the GM assumes a certain baseline competence. Say a barroom brawl, where the use of any weapon or spell is overkill. I feel this is an advantage to class systems.

On the other hand:

When I think of a barroom brawl in a movie, there are always minor or major characters that do stuff like scrambling under the tables to avoid the fighting, or sit untouched in the corner and watch, cooly rescuing their drink just before the table is smashed to splinters in front of them, or act all shocked scream-queen, etc, etc... Not all characters enter the fight swinging their fists, and I find it more character-defining to give people options like these, rather than enforcing a minimum fisticuffs competency.

An enforced minimum competency, especially when it is auto-raised, also can give the feeling of rampant inflation, and make all rising numbers feel meaningless.

 

[Hussar]

Because it's not D&D. And of course it has its own issues.

To be strict, I'd say that a classless D&D would be better. A better D&D wouldn't have to be classless. I haven't ditched them from my game yet, after all. I just think they're more sacred cows then pillars of roleplaying.

Not that surprising, but also kind of hypocritical. The first option I wrote is something that hasn't existed at least since AD&D; wherein there are many classes that share abilities and several hybrid classes. Even 4e is not that restrictive. So that makes me wonder where exactly people get this idea that niche protection is part of the game or important on that level; they didn't get it from playing the game itself.

Unless of course, they're all hearkening back to something older than that where there were only a couple of classes and they really were distinct. Quite a reach from where we are today.

But, even within hybrid classes you have very strong niche protection. Sure rangers got spells at 9th level but that's hardly their niche. They have always been the only class with some sort of Favored enemy ability. That's their niche.

A class doesn't have to be 100% unique to protect its niche. That would be ridiculous.