Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7029687" data-attributes="member: 996">I think niche protection in the classic game 'worked,' as you say when done 'right' - as niche-protection, because that's what we labeled it.&nbsp; That is, it fostered the attitude that you 'needed a cleric' and meant the cleric was constantly casting Cure..Wounds and that the DM put in lots more monsters when they were undead, quite successfully. That didn't balance the cleric (the intent) nor make it fun to play (hopefully also intended), but it made it 'niche protected.' And then, there was the Thief ...&nbsp;Not to mention they were bad at their niche until said niche had long since stopped mattering because of said spells &amp;c.&nbsp;&nbsp;Apparently there's enough.&nbsp;Sure, and it's inevitable that'll happen, whether it happens more or less 'fairly' around the table is something the system can help with balance, and the DM can impose fiat.&nbsp; Niche protection just makes it stereotypical - the Rogue always takes the stage when the party needs to see how a trap works.&nbsp; (Wow that was awesome! Yeah, was it from Grimtooth?&nbsp; There goes another charge from my Staff of Resurrection.)&nbsp;Tolerable.&nbsp; But any involvement helps.&nbsp; Not just in keeping everyone happy, but it making the time on the stage count, because everyone else isn't off playing Nintendo (yeah, I'm old) in the next room...&nbsp;Not so much.&nbsp; ;(&nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; Our group 'fixed' Polymorph in those two campaigns by the odd expedient of a) never having a Wizard and b) the Sorcerer in each case never learning Polymorph.&nbsp; &nbsp;Chicken and egg, I guess. Do campaigns break up before getting to high level because the game goes all wobbly, or does the game go all wobbly because designers don't bother to balance the bits that most folks never get around to using?&nbsp; Sounds&nbsp; like they could feed back on eachother, anyway.&nbsp; Tony &quot;glad one of the jokes didn't bomb&quot; Vargas</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7029687, member: 996"] I think niche protection in the classic game 'worked,' as you say when done 'right' - as niche-protection, because that's what we labeled it. That is, it fostered the attitude that you 'needed a cleric' and meant the cleric was constantly casting Cure..Wounds and that the DM put in lots more monsters when they were undead, quite successfully. That didn't balance the cleric (the intent) nor make it fun to play (hopefully also intended), but it made it 'niche protected.' And then, there was the Thief ... Not to mention they were bad at their niche until said niche had long since stopped mattering because of said spells &c. Apparently there's enough. Sure, and it's inevitable that'll happen, whether it happens more or less 'fairly' around the table is something the system can help with balance, and the DM can impose fiat. Niche protection just makes it stereotypical - the Rogue always takes the stage when the party needs to see how a trap works. (Wow that was awesome! Yeah, was it from Grimtooth? There goes another charge from my Staff of Resurrection.) Tolerable. But any involvement helps. Not just in keeping everyone happy, but it making the time on the stage count, because everyone else isn't off playing Nintendo (yeah, I'm old) in the next room... Not so much. ;( Nod. Our group 'fixed' Polymorph in those two campaigns by the odd expedient of a) never having a Wizard and b) the Sorcerer in each case never learning Polymorph. Chicken and egg, I guess. Do campaigns break up before getting to high level because the game goes all wobbly, or does the game go all wobbly because designers don't bother to balance the bits that most folks never get around to using? Sounds like they could feed back on eachother, anyway. Tony "glad one of the jokes didn't bomb" Vargas [/QUOTE]

Verification