The Niche Protection Poll

[Ahnehnois]

Interesting. So what, in your mind, is the distinction beteween 3e multiclassing, and some hypothetical D&Desque classless game where a character who gains Level X can choose between barbarian rage and increased spellcasting? Do they have roughly equal levels of "niche protection," even though the latter doesn't have classes?

If the system truly presents this as a dichotomous choice, then yes. If it's more skill-based, you'd never be making that choice. For example, a rogue never really has to choose between stealth and diplomacy. He can do both if he wants. There are limits on how he can spend his resources, but it's a pretty open system.

What about feats such as Whirlwind Attack that are prohibitive in terms of prerequisites for most other characters?

The fighter is really just getting early access. If you're thinking in terms of core only, there might be a significant difference in access, but once you start throwing in the broad range of 3e options, there are a lot of ways of getting those feats (and Whirlwind Attack isn't all that great anyway, but that's an aside).

 

[Starfox]

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]
Looks like your group basically likes monks instead of rangers. They are kind of similar, especially if you don't think in specific mechanics but general terms. Both light warriors with scouting skills and limited supernatural abilities. But yeah, that looks like a pretty plausible distribution.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised at this, more characters than I realized uses some kind of unarmed combat. Its actually 2 in my current group, versus one conventional weapon fighter, and yet I didn't think of us as martial arts heavy until now.

 

[Oldehouserules]

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.

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...

 

[I'm A Banana]

If the system truly presents this as a dichotomous choice, then yes. If it's more skill-based, you'd never be making that choice. For example, a rogue never really has to choose between stealth and diplomacy. He can do both if he wants. There are limits on how he can spend his resources, but it's a pretty open system.

I see. So in your mind a niche doesn't have to be labelled with "class" for it to be a niche? If, say, all wizards had to be specialized so that you'd have to pick one of D&D's 8 schools of magic, each school of magic would be a niche? Does 4e's concept of roles "protect" a niche (one cannot be simultaneously a leader and a controller, though one could be a leadery controller or a controllery leader)?

 

[Ahnehnois]

So in your mind a niche doesn't have to be labelled with "class" for it to be a niche? If, say, all wizards had to be specialized so that you'd have to pick one of D&D's 8 schools of magic, each school of magic would be a niche?

If there were no classes, there would be no wizards. But yes, if the system was structured so that it was effectively impossible to get more than one school, that sounds like a niche has been carved out. Since this is a D&D poll, I phrased it in class terms but it doesn't absolutely have to be.

Does 4e's concept of roles "protect" a niche (one cannot be simultaneously a leader and a controller, though one could be a leadery controller or a controllery leader)?

If there are significant character abilities that are specific to each role (which I believe there are).

 

[Starfox]

Does 4e's concept of roles "protect" a niche (one cannot be simultaneously a leader and a controller, though one could be a leadery controller or a controllery leader)?

If there are significant character abilities that are specific to each role (which I believe there are).

Let me take an example. In an old X-men comic (forgot which one), Iceman loses his powers to Emma Frost. She immediately discovers a slew of new uses for his powers, all involving ice but doing things he never though of doing. In 4E terms, this is because Iceman is a striker and Emma Frost is a controller. When a controller gets hold of ice powers, she can do many more things with it than a striker can, but she doesn't have the punch a striker does.

To my mind, ice is the niche here, and Iceman and Emma Frost expresses this niche in different ways. But the roles are also niches - for example all leaders had a virtually identical heal power. Which of these niches "deserve" protection (if any) is a matter of taste.

 

[pemerton]

Going back to the PF thread where I pointed out that if you really wanted to cherry-pick a useful spell for one isolated situation, a rogue would be as good as a wizard because both of them can use scrolls. This was dismissed essentially on niche protection grounds, as if the rogue is doing something wrong if he does this.

At least for my part, the concern was more the opposite: not that the rogue is treading on the wizard's territory, but that it seemed to be being suggested that the best way to play a highly viable and contributing rogue is to play the character as a type of item-dependent magician.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Interesting. So what, in your mind, is the distinction beteween 3e multiclassing, and some hypothetical D&Desque classless game where a character who gains Level X can choose between barbarian rage and increased spellcasting?

None at all. For all practical purposes in my opinion 3.X is a game of packaged point buy rather than a class based game. Classes should represent things that are fundamental to the character; either their approach, their mindset, or their position within the world. (For example on the latter, Apocalypse World has a class called Hardholder, who runs the post-apocalyptic settlement. They can change classes if they get forced out - but it's so fundamental to who the character is at that time that it's a class by itself.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

At least for my part, the concern was more the opposite: not that the rogue is treading on the wizard's territory, but that it seemed to be being suggested that the best way to play a highly viable and contributing rogue is to play the character as a type of item-dependent magician.

What would be the contrary? PF does wealth by level. The standard 10th level rogue has a (very conservative, IME) 62,000 gp according to WBL charts. Are we to assume that he spends it all on a vacation home? Rogues tend slightly more this way because they have UMD as a class skill, but the plain reality is that every mid- to high-level PF or 3.X character is an item-dependent magician.

Again, if one doesn't like wealth by level or the range of items available, that's fine, but it's not a niche protection issue. Anything that is primarily accomplished by magic items is not a niche, because those are for everyone. Thus, a rogue who cherry-picks a scroll germane to the situation is not "playing a fake wizard", he is simply playing a real rogue.

As I've also noted, one doesn't have to be an item-dependent magician unless the game consists of challenges that involve bypassing thick walls in over a minute but not much over, and similarly contrived challenges that make spellcasting look essential.

 

[pemerton]

Again, if one doesn't like wealth by level or the range of items available, that's fine, but it's not a niche protection issue.

In post 31 you suggested that some of those who didn't like a PF-style UMD rogue didn't like it because of niche protection issues.

I said that, at least for my part, it is not a niche protection issue at all. Now you seem to be agreeing with me, so I don't understand why you are writing as if you disagree with me.

For clarity: the reason I don't like the UMD rogue has nothing to do with niche protection. It's because I don't like playing a rogue as a fake or quasi-magician. That has nothing to do with niche protection. It is about a rogue having the flavour of a rogue rather than of a wizard.

every mid- to high-level PF or 3.X character is an item-dependent magician.

<snip>

Anything that is primarily accomplished by magic items is not a niche, because those are for everyone.

This may well be true of PF. It is not true of D&D in general. For instance, in AD&D using magic items certainly is a niche - part of the power of various classes is their access to certain items. And in AD&D the most common magic items are items that confer static bonuses of various sorts, and using them is not really like playing a magician at all.