The Niche Protection Poll

[Starfox]

Multiclassing never worked well in 3E. In 1E and 2E, the investment gave a reasonable return, but in 3E it just didn't work well, especially for spellcasters. So mashups became a logical next step, even if they existed in 1E and 2E they only flourished in Pathfinder. This returned the game to its roots.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Multiclassing never worked well in 3E. In 1E and 2E, the investment gave a reasonable return, but in 3E it just didn't work well, especially for spellcasters. So mashups became a logical next step, even if they existed in 1E and 2E they only flourished in Pathfinder. This returned the game to its roots.

PF's approach (don't know how roots-y it is) is essentially build your own class, which is fine, but which results in very little niche protection. There is quite often an archetype that will get you into another class's shtick, and if not that, these mashup classes may do it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I don't know about "always been". To me, 3e and PF are option #3, trending pretty strongly towards #4. 4e, OTOH, seems more like option #2 (with various types of things being associated with a power source).

 

[DMZ2112]

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

In a global sense, I can't say, because they do. D&D isn't one game out of a field, it's the genre origin.

In a more specific sense, however, where we ask if these new classes would be classes in a given game where the original classes did not exist, I find that when an MMOG gets "creative" with its class design -- perhaps in order to avoid emulating D&D or WoW, perhaps not -- the results cause me substantial cognitive dissonance.

Here's a great example:

The Tactician adds deep and situational versatility to the Rogue calling. Offensively, the Soul combines bolts of withering energy with a devastating set of elemental torrents that erupt in arcs of fire, ice, and death. The Tactician’s group healing skills are just as enviable, as are its fire-and-forget cores and robust support abilities.

...What?

A counter to the Rift phenomenon is Lord of the Rings Online, where the classes are not drawn from D&D, but each represent a single archetype from a low-magic world well. Admittedly, some resemble renamed D&D classes, but for the most part they represent unique concepts with little overlap between primary roles.

So in both the global and specific cases, I would ultimately say no, they would not be classes, because the very name "class" suggests that they are designed to be categorical. To lead a category, a class must simultaneously be specific and inclusive. A fighter fights, a cleric calls upon miracles, a thief steals (in all senses of the word), and a magic-user uses magic. It is difficult to imagine a category that is defined by, say, the Pathfinder Bloodrager, who fights like a fighter, rages like a barbarian, uses magic like a magic-user, and casts spontaneously like a sorcerer. It is highly specific, but also very exclusive. It represents a category of one.

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.

From my perspective, the bard is only a mashup when executed poorly, and the paladin and ranger should probably not be classes.

I think the AD&D2 approach was excellent, apart from the continuation of racial limitations on class and leveling. Indeed, I have no complaint with multiclassing -- in my opinion, a class should make you feel like your character belongs to a tradition, but multiclassing should make you feel like he breaks from that tradition and becomes his own man.

One of my greatest joys in D&D3 was how much it encouraged multiclassing, and one of my biggest complaints about Pathfinder is how thoroughly it discourages multiclassing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

From my perspective, the bard is only a mashup when executed poorly, and the paladin and ranger should probably not be classes.

I'd have a hard time imagining D&D without the ranger; perhaps the most popular and distinctive class in my experience. Paladin I wouldn't miss. But okay.

One of my greatest joys in D&D3 was how much it encouraged multiclassing, and one of my biggest complaints about Pathfinder is how thoroughly it discourages multiclassing.

Interesting. To me, the main things that PF does to discourage multiclasing are improved 20-level viability among the base classes, and archetypes. To me, those are both good things in and of themselves. I do think you're right that multiclassing has become less popular; it has for me since I started using many of the PF classes as a base.

 

[Minigiant]

I like classes to be very niche protected BUT allow character to spend other resources to grab a new niche.



For example a fighter shouldn't be able by default to get the lockpicking, sneak attack, and stealth of a thief but a goblin fighter can take the Goblin Cutter feats/subclass/kit/ACF to get them closer for those of a equal level thief.

 

[DMZ2112]

I'd have a hard time imagining D&D without the ranger; perhaps the most popular and distinctive class in my experience. Paladin I wouldn't miss. But okay.

That's kind of fascinating to me, that you'd miss one and not the other. I feel like the ranger is just a ranged fighter with wilderness lore, and at that point you might as well make the wilderness lore feats available to any class. Why can't I have a rogue ranger, or a cleric ranger?

Interesting. To me, the main things that PF does to discourage multiclasing are improved 20-level viability among the base classes, and archetypes. To me, those are both good things in and of themselves. I do think you're right that multiclassing has become less popular; it has for me since I started using many of the PF classes as a base.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Pathfinder a great deal, and the things you've listed are definitely system improvements over D&D3.5. I just lament the passing of multiclassing, and I do not feel like a whole book of pre-multiclassed kludge classes is a good solution.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How does 3e-style multiclassing fit into this distinction?

You can call a barbarian's rage a unique class feature available only to the barbarian, but if any Tom (the fighter), Dick (the wizard) and Mary (the cleric) can take a level of barbarian whenever they want, it's not like it's a tight silo -- exclusive to the barbarian, maybe, but functionally available to anyone who wants it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's kind of fascinating to me, that you'd miss one and not the other. I feel like the ranger is just a ranged fighter with wilderness lore, and at that point you might as well make the wilderness lore feats available to any class. Why can't I have a rogue ranger, or a cleric ranger?

Classes aren't synonymous with exclusive niches. If we look at classes as instead being packages of abilities that either go well together mechanically or are popular, than ranger makes a lot of sense. A lot of people want a dip in thief skills, good combat ability, and a little healing after the battle. If D&D were a point buy game, a lot of characters would look like rangers, some like fighters and wizards, and very few would look like paladins or bards.

Also, we already have a cleric ranger, that's called a druid.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Pathfinder a great deal, and the things you've listed are definitely system improvements over D&D3.5. I just lament the passing of multiclassing, and I do not feel like a whole book of pre-multiclassed kludge classes is a good solution.

I think it's always been problematic that spellcasting isn't a d20-based commodity, and it doesn't work the way d20-based stuff works, and thus casters don't multiclass well.

If I wanted to multiclass ranger and rogue, for example, the skills that they share would retain their full advancement, their BAB would stack and thus be in between a straight ranger and a straight rogue. With spellcasters, you just get crap spells and no stacking. That's not going to change as long as magic looks anything like what it looks like.

How does 3e-style multiclassing fit into this distinction?

It interacts with the question I'm asking, but doesn't fundamentally change it. To get rage, you have to take an actual level in barbarian. That has significant implications distinct from rage being available as a feat or through some other means to every class. If you're a caster in particular, you give up a level of spellcasting to get it. Depending on what scale your campaign is on, that one level in barbarian may divert a large portion of your conceivable advancement. By the rules, it also risks a multiclass penalty.

Thus, 3e rage is more exclusive than the fighter's bonus feats; the fighter's only really exclusive ability is a small number of optional, but not particularly powerful feats that simply add numerical bonuses.

 

[Minigiant]

Well one of the reasons why 3e and Pathfinder had niche protection for magic spellcasters was because they had BAB as core but magic rating was a rarely used variant rule. Playing with magic rating (which is like bab for casting) really lowers niche protection a whole lot.

As for rangers, they exist because of the niche protection. A wilderness character to survive in the powerful wild of most fantasy settings needs strong skills to avoid or track the monsters, strong combat to fight the ones he can't avoid or must weaken, and healing to patch up later. All three of these were in protected niches of different classes and multiclassng at the time never gave them in enough strength. Loner fighter/rogu/clerics didn't work that well often.

And that brings up a point.

If you have access to a class feature of another class but at a very low capacity, is that niche protected?
Does it count as niche protection if anyone can get access but only a few can actually be good enough to utilize it? A dip in wizard doesn't make you team caster at level 7.