The Niche Protection Poll

[Ahnehnois]

Again, how unique does a class have to be to be considered "niche protected"?

Very, to some people. Recall that an objection over Use Magic Device started this line of thought.

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.

I think there's a lot of overlap between the terms "core, defining element of D&D" and "sacred cow".

And of course it's been present in some form, but has changed radically throughout the editions. After all, I'd argue that perhaps the most salient example has been that instant healing is strictly limited to characters with divine magic (and bards, who are ambiguous in where they fit in), but of course 4e tore down that particular one.

 

[Hussar]

Very, to some people. Recall that an objection over Use Magic Device started this line of thought.

I think there's a lot of overlap between the terms "core, defining element of D&D" and "sacred cow".

And of course it's been present in some form, but has changed radically throughout the editions. After all, I'd argue that perhaps the most salient example has been that instant healing is strictly limited to characters with divine magic (and bards, who are ambiguous in where they fit in), but of course 4e tore down that particular one.

Yes, but, that's because you've insisted on misinterpreting the line of thought.

You claimed that using a wand wasn't actually using magic, because the rogue had to use a skill first. To me that's like saying casting a spell isn't using magic because the wizard has to move his hands and say words first, none of which are inherently magical.

The point that you continuously missed was the fact that the way you were keeping the thief on par with the other casters was by having the thief CAST SPELLS. How he cast those spells wasn't the issue. The issue was that he was casting spells in the first place. A fighter with a magic sword isn't terribly different from one without. He's still swinging a sword, dealing direct damage. A thief using scrolls or wands is doing things that a thief absolutely cannot do without those items. A thief cannot cast Ray of Frost without a magic item that gives him the ability to cast Ray of Frost.

The issue, again, was never about how the thief can use that item, but the fact that he has to use that item to keep on pace with the other characters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The issue, again, was never about how the thief can use that item, but the fact that he has to use that item to keep on pace with the other characters.

Yes, but of course that's just obviously wrong. A wizard without items is equally useless. Even if one makes allowances for a spell book and components, wizards are completely dependent on certain magic items, just for different reasons (in PF, this would be the might Int item, a resistance bonus, and probably a bunch of AC boosting items). No character in the 3.X framework is complete or functional without equipment.

The difference in the rogue's case that his class skill enables him to use spell completion items on occasion in addition to other items is not fundamentally different. Moreover, someone else brought up a similar objection to adamantine weapons, which aren't wizardly at all.

And in any case, it took a fairly contrived example to even necessitate having a wizard/rogue with scroll. How good characters are at getting through thick walls in exactly 66 seconds is not really that big of a deal.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but of course that's just obviously wrong. A wizard without items is equally useless. Even if one makes allowances for a spell book and components, wizards are completely dependent on certain magic items, just for different reasons (in PF, this would be the might Int item, a resistance bonus, and probably a bunch of AC boosting items). No character in the 3.X framework is complete or functional without equipment.

The difference in the rogue's case that his class skill enables him to use spell completion items on occasion in addition to other items is not fundamentally different. Moreover, someone else brought up a similar objection to adamantine weapons, which aren't wizardly at all.

And in any case, it took a fairly contrived example to even necessitate having a wizard/rogue with scroll. How good characters are at getting through thick walls in exactly 66 seconds is not really that big of a deal.

But, the wizard items you mention don't change the fact that he's still a wizard. All it does is make him a better wizard - harder to hit, harder to resist his spells. It's the same as a fighter with strength boost items and magic weapons - he's a better fighter.

A rogue using wands and scrolls isn't a better rogue. He's a caster now. If the reason he's hitting is because he's using a wand with a touch attack spell, that fundamentally changes what that character is. He's no longer just a better rogue because of his items, now he's aping other classes.

A wizard with a spell book, spell component case, an Int Boost item and bracers of defence is still very much a wizard. Without knowing the class first, how would you distinguish a wand using rogue from a wizard?

 

[Ahnehnois]

A wizard with a spell book, spell component case, an Int Boost item and bracers of defence is still very much a wizard.

A wizard with bracers of armor, an amulet of natural armor, and a ring of protection is getting sort of fighter-y with all that AC there. A Con item makes him seem more so.

Part of the wizard archetype is frailty, part of the warrior archetype is toughness. Casters use magic items to move from the former towards the latter all the time. Clerics are the healers, but other people pick up wands of CLW. Likewise, part of the wizard archetype is picking out situational spells to solve problems, and some other characters encroach on that niche sometimes. It doesn't mean they've sold their souls to do so. It also doesn't mean that this action is somehow illegitimate, or doesn't count when comparing different classes.

Perhaps you believe strongly in niche protection and you think wizards should remain wussy, rogues should remain stealthy fast-talkers, and never the twain shall meet. Either way, the rogue using a wand is not different than any other magic item use.

Without knowing the class first, how would you distinguish a wand using rogue from a wizard?

The wand. Wizards hardly ever use wands. Also, the fact that the rogue is wearing armor. And the rogue is probably better looking.

 

[Hussar]

Wizards hardly use wands? Really? I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who didn't pick up at least one wand and use it regularly. Pretty standard IME.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wizards hardly use wands? Really? I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who didn't pick up at least one wand and use it regularly. Pretty standard IME.

I can't remember the last time I saw that happen in a game. I throw them in to treasure every now and then, but they sell them right off.

Wands are not unheard of with clerics and other divine characters, not just CLW but also occasionally higher level healing spells and LR. Those are the things that make the most sense to do in wand form because caster level is not that important (even less so in my more recent games that use vp/wp), but you'll want to cast them over and over again. Quantity over quality.

With wizards, I'm not really sure what spells are wand-worthy. Knock, maybe, but you have to run into fifty locked doors that you can't otherwise bypass to make that worthwhile.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps it might help if you defined what you think niche is. A wizard with a handful of extra Hp and a decent AC is not going to be standing on the front line in melee. So in my mind he's not stepping on the fighter's niche at all.

Which is why clerics are problematic because it is very easy for a cleric to stand in the front line in melee and do as much or more damage than the fighter. At least in 3.5e anyway.

 

[Hussar]

Oops double post.

Well since I double posted I might as well use the space.

Wands I've seen used: extended range wand of fireball is devastating in an outdoor campaign. Extended range Unseen Servant pretty much replaces the rogue for trap finding. Wands of Charm person or Monster are fantastically useful. Wand of Ivisibility is a good one.

That's off the top of my head.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I ever played 2e, but in 1e Rangers could climb, outdoors; and had a chance of moving silently, outdoors; I don't remember if they got any sort of hide capability (outdoors).

3e really opened up their favoured enemy options. In 1e they were better against Giants and Humanoids, period.

1e also allowed for what I call "heavy Rangers", essentially plate-clad tanks with woodsy skills. Later editions kinda forced them away from that, into lightly-armoured scouts (which they could be in 1e too, but weren't forced to be).

To me the Ranger's "niche" is the woods skills - plant knowledge, direction sense (outdoors), tracking, etc. - the physical stuff, as opposed to the metaphysical in nature which is, of course, best left to the Druids/Nature Clerics.

Lan-"the first character I ever played was a 'heavy Ranger'"-efan