The Niche Protection Poll

[Starfox]

They have always been the only class with some sort of Favored enemy ability. That's their niche.

I always thought favored enemy was a nuisance, and that being a warrior with skill points was their niche.

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.

I agree, that is a problem. This is a complex situation with no clear best solution. A class presupposes the world will look in certain ways and that players will look for certain kinds of solutions. But so does any rules system; that 3E has a chapter on combat and one page on Diplomacy tells us what kinds of solutions are expected to prevail. We much just chose a degree of direction and rigidity that works for us.

 

[Dannorn]

This gives players more freedom to create characters with capabilities normally not associated with their class; smooth talking fighters, brawny rogues, etc.

We can make a distinction between capabilities derived from ability scores (i.e., being fast or strong) and class abilities (like using magic). The former are more innate, while the latter suggest formal (and sometime extensive) training, especially with magic.

The problem here is having prime requisites for a particular class, which was fine when it only added a small experience bonus. But soon enough (as early as Greyhawk), it became increasingly impossible to function as a fighter without having a high strength or a magic user without intelligence, etc. Add the ability to arrange to taste, and we had some pretty boring (and not too varied) characters. The fighter was always strong, the cleric was always wise, etc.

Exactly, niche protection demands optimization, that's why I don't particularly like it. If you're the Fighter you have to be the Fighteriest Fighter you can be because that's your niche, that's what you do, and no one else can. You can't be wasting ability points on Charisma or skill points on Bluff/Diplomacy because A) that's not your job meat shield and B) that's the Bard's niche so back off.

In my mind class shouldn't define what I'm able to do (skills, spells, and feats cover that) but the tools I have to work with (magic, weapon and armour proficiencies, etc.), and I should be able to pick up new tools (within reason through feats) as I go. Yeah as a Fighter I'm probably not the best candidate for trying to Bluff past the guards, but that doesn't mean there should be game mechanics that keep me from even trying.

I favor a somewhat structured class system (clericism and magic are learned at the expense of other things), with a more open, broad ability score system. Players are free to attempt any actions not expressly reserved for class or obviously requiring specialized training, although subject to a governing attribute. Our own Pits & Perils tries to accomplish this in its own way...

Pretty much this. Give classes abilities that make them better at certain tasks than pretty much anyone, but don't say they're the only people who can do those tasks.

 

[pemerton]

The first option I wrote is something that hasn't existed at least since AD&D

In my 4e game most of the PCs has a significant ability that is exclusive to it in virtue of class: the ranger-cleric has twin strike, plus clerical healing; the fighter has Come and Get It (well, Warrior's Urging) plus a heap of other fighter melee control abilities; the paladin has lay on hands and divine challenge. The sorcerer plays very distinctively at my table, with all these high-damage modest-control AoE attacks (plus sending everyone flying on an attack roll of 1), although a wizard could probably be built that had a similar feel in play. The invoker-wizard occupies a very distinct niche at the table - he is the ritualist and sage - but a wizard or even warlock could probably be built that also emulates this role.

In choosing the 1st option, as is often the case with these ENworld polls, I went with the general thrust rather than the literal wording: I think classes should make it easy for a group of players to build characters that will be noticeably different, but still mechanically effective, in play. If some classes are trap choices, they're not doing their job. If the natural pathway for PCs of different classes is to end up converging on certain common sets of abilities, then they're not doing their job either - at that point you may as well just drop classes and go with point buy.

Of course, if the players in a class-based game don't want to be different, then they're not obliged to. In my experience with classic D&D, this can work particularly well for all-thief parties. At high levels (ie when they have enough spells available to compensate for their physical frailty), all-mage parties can be very effective also.

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.

I've GMed a lot of Rolemaster, where the typical wizard even at very high levels is vulnerable to being taken down by a single good hit from a weapon or attack spell; and is virtually helpless in physical combat.

It creates a different play dynamic from D&D, but if you're playing a game like RM then typically that's exactly what you'd be looking for, I think.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This can create a problem when the GM assumes a certain baseline competence.

It can, but then again, it doesn't have to be a problem. If a 15th level wizard gets in a barroom brawl, to me he either needs to start casting spells or get beat up. I don't see any reason why he needs the same BAB as a 7th level fighter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I'm on board with [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]. I'm not even sure that favored enemy would constitute a "significant" ability in the way I meant when I wrote the poll. To me, a ranger is a mishmash of classes that does not have a distinct niche; its martial prowess, skills, and even limited spellcasting are more important than this one unique ability.

 

[Hussar]

I'm on board with [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]. I'm not even sure that favored enemy would constitute a "significant" ability in the way I meant when I wrote the poll. To me, a ranger is a mishmash of classes that does not have a distinct niche; its martial prowess, skills, and even limited spellcasting are more important than this one unique ability.

Really?

Favored enemy is the one constant across all editions that rangers have appeared in.

Rangers as giant killers is quintessential to me.

Then again, I'm thinking that your opinions are limited to 3e. After all, skills wasn't a thing in AdnD.

3e is the edition that greatly weakened niches. I hope 5e reverses that trend and it looks like most people would like to see that too.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then again, I'm thinking that your opinions are limited to 3e. After all, skills wasn't a thing in AdnD.

Didn't rangers get Hide and Move Silently in 2e? And wasn't favored enemy much more limited than in 3e? I remember the 2e ranger for its combat prowess, occasional healing, and the fact that you could multiclass it with cleric for some reason.

3e is the edition that greatly weakened niches.

That it did.

 

[Starfox]

Exactly, niche protection demands optimization, that's why I don't particularly like it. If you're the Fighter you have to be the Fighteriest Fighter you can be because that's your niche, that's what you do, and no one else can. You can't be wasting ability points on Charisma or skill points on Bluff/Diplomacy because A) that's not your job meat shield and B) that's the Bard's niche so back off.

I am not refuting your point, Dannorn, I am merely making an observation.

This is a bit funny in that in our 4E game, everybody seemed to create as self-reliant a character as was possible. Few if any feats and very little gold as spent on items on the very expensive specialist options. Mostly, people improved their defenses and got themselves utility. Everybody was already so good at their role that getting more peak competence there seemed futile. I've seen similar developments in other games, but nothing as extreme as in 4E. On the other had, skill-wise 4E had 6 classes, one for each attribute - if an attribute was the favored attribute of your class, those skills were your good skills, no matter where you spent your points. Other DnD games has this to a lesser degree.

This is not true in all games, for example Rolemaster was much better at this kind of niche protection. Out-of-class options were simply prohibitively expensive.

Point-bye games also differ from each other in this regard. Some have synergies that give benefits for putting many points into one area, but most are the opposite way; escalating costs make high levels in a focused area a waste of points while a broader, more even level of competence is promoted. GURPS is the second way, Hero System the first way. It is pretty easy to see what differs between them; GURPS has increasing xp costs, while Hero has constant costs, each point is a skill or attribute costs the same regardless of your current score.

Each of us should look for a system that fits your preferences. Or at least an acceptable compromise.

 

[Tuft]

I am not refuting your point, Dannorn, I am merely making an observation.

This is a bit funny in that in our 4E game, everybody seemed to create as self-reliant a character as was possible. Few if any feats and very little gold as spent on items on the very expensive specialist options. Mostly, people improved their defenses and got themselves utility. Everybody was already so good at their role that getting more peak competence there seemed futile. I've seen similar developments in other games, but nothing as extreme as in 4E.

Made you feel rather superflous as a leader in that game... "Oh, so want to heal me? Nah, I've already triggered a surge of my own with this power/item..." The fighter almost got killed in the final boss fight of the entire campaign, because I had so gotten out of the habit of using any heals...

Fighter, Swordmage, always-hidden Rogue and defenderish-houseruled Bard variant - all optimizing their builds for defense vs pre-MM3 monsters. Mandatory item on everybody's wishlists was something we called the "awesome cap"(1) - a helmet whose official name I've forgotten, but that aided your defense as long as you stayed undamaged - and that could be quite a while.

But I'd say that Defense belonged to everyone's class niche in that campaign, except the rogue, who had the close substitute Stealth..


(1) The player of the Fighter was the big 4E fan, and had the habit of exclaiming "awesome!" at everything 4E:ish... This was of course a long time before the Lego movie.

 

[Hussar]

Didn't rangers get Hide and Move Silently in 2e? And wasn't favored enemy much more limited than in 3e? I remember the 2e ranger for its combat prowess, occasional healing, and the fact that you could multiclass it with cleric for some reason.

That it did.

So, two thief skills, out of eight or so, and thieves no longer have a niche? Note, the ranger's skills were halved as soon as he left natural surroundings. More niche protection. And, let's not forget the nature empathy - another power that no one else got. Cleric spells didn't kick in until 8th level, so, not really stepping on the cleric's toes too much.

Again, how unique does a class have to be to be considered "niche protected"? I mean, in core, rangers got two weapon fighting, for free, which no one else could do without pretty serious penalties. That right there makes rangers considerably different from other fighter types. They had several unique abilities that no one else got like animal empathy, some serious (and I mean serious) followers, bonuses to a specific type of creature (a watered down ability from 1e where it was a much broader ability - something 3e brought back) and tracking with bonuses.

How much more does a class need?

I look at it this way. Mechanically, in 3e, you could make a fighter/cleric that was pretty darn close to a paladin. Might be a bit off, but, not too far. Certainly close enough for government work. Yet, it wasn't a paladin, because it lacked a couple of very key elements - Paladin's Code would be the big one for me, and the paladin's warhorse. Both are class features that no other class gets.

Barbarian's rage. That's what they do. That's what distinguishes a barbarian from a really hairy ranger. To me, that's fantastic. I want that differentiation. If I wanted to play point buy systems, I would. There's a ton of really good ones out there.

Niche protection isn't a sacred cow in need of slaughter. It's a core, defining element of D&D. It's the one thing that has never, ever changed throughout all the editions. Each class has unique goodies that no one else gets.

And that's a good thing.