The Niche Protection Poll

[The Crimson Binome]

Straight up: if a class does not have unique abilities, it is not a class.

A unique combination of abilities is, itself, a unique ability.

 

[DMZ2112]

A unique combination of abilities is, itself, a unique ability.

I just don't see it that way. This is the whole of my issue with the new Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide. It's a whole book of mashup /somethings/, but they're not classes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I just don't see it that way. This is the whole of my issue with the new Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide. It's a whole book of mashup /somethings/, but they're not classes.

Would they be classes, if the base classes didn't exist?

I get what you're saying, but it seems like a lot is hinging on perspective. Classes are bundles of abilities, and it doesn't always make sense that a character with one ability should necessarily have another one of those abilities. Who is to say that one way of arranging those abilities is better than some other way of doing it?

 

[Starfox]

I would actually phrase it as the inverse:

Every class should have things that it cannot do.

Restrictions are more important that niche protection.

Agree with this. Since 3E, there really have been no abilities exclusive to one class, but there certainly has been classes that lacked access to certain kinds of abilities, and got more of other abilities as a tradeoff.

Voted #4

Then again, I like classless systems, if they're well done. To me, that means that they have synergies that encourage certain avenues of development, without being classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer strong niche protection as the starting point, then adding options to lessen the niche protection as much as you want. I think D&D has always been an archetype-based game with classes, so I like it to stay that way, but then it can offer more and more flexible options with no limit.

5e looks like it's going to handle this quite well for my tastes. For example, each class having several unique features, but then having flexible multiclassing rules, guidelines to mix subclasses, feats which grant another class' features, and an option to freely pick your skills and tools proficiencies.

The system is also such that with a small effort you can take this one step further with pretty simple house rules, such as letting a PC freely pick 2 saving throw proficiencies of choice, or deconstructing a subclass benefits and let another class take them (when applicable).

 

[Bluenose]

Is option 4 an actual option for a class-based game? I mean, isn't it "characters pick abilities and classes don't exist"?

Rolemaster (and MERP, of course) did it, at least the early version. A character could spend the points they got when levelling up wherever they liked, though different classes got skills/abilities for different costs.

I would actually phrase it as the inverse:

Every class should have things that it cannot do.

Restrictions are more important that niche protection.

Personally I'd like to see a mix of this and the approach of each class having something unique they can do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Voted #1.

So long as multi-classing exists... classes should have unique abilities so that multi-classing actually has a purpose. If you are a Fighter and want to be more of a holy warrior that can turn the undead... that's when you multi-class into Cleric rather than just be able to pick up Turn Undead as a feat (or whatever methodology the game might include).

If you can cherry-pick class abilities, then there's no reason to have multi-classing. So you should eliminate either one from the game-- endless cherry-picking or multi-classing.

 

[Starfox]

If you can cherry-pick class abilities, then there's no reason to have multi-classing. So you should eliminate either one from the game-- endless cherry-picking or multi-classing.

I feel this is what is happening in Pathfider, with the array of archetypes replacing multiclasses and prestige classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I just don't see it that way. This is the whole of my issue with the new Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide. It's a whole book of mashup /somethings/, but they're not classes.

Mashup somethings are a pretty old idea, though, aren't they? Ranger, bard, paladin, those are mashups. The 2e approach to classes was that you are your class, but there are so many options that your class/multiclass can have all kinds of different combinations of things. There are tons of characters with thief skills, cleric spells, weapon specialization, etc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would actually phrase it as the inverse:

Every class should have things that it cannot do.

Restrictions are more important that niche protection.

I'm not entirely sure what that distinction means. I think that's probably true in just about any version of D&D.