Quote from: beejazzActually it isn't so much advice as a demonstration that friggin' anyone and everyone can heal. To list... you know... your own example... every. single. arcane caster. heals. You mentioned yourself one guy was a spirit shaman, so I assume you have Complete Divine? You're saying that arcane casters can't heal even so? Even though in that same book there's Arcane Domain, which can turn any and every arcane caster into a healer faster than you can say "healing domain?" So... yeah... you can play as a necromancer healer. Or whatever other crazy combo you can think of.

I wasn't really talking specifically about D&D 3.5 when I made that statement, but rather D&D throughout the ages, from white box to red box to AD&D 1st to 2nd to D&D 3.  But yeah, okay, you're right, with a long enough list of feats, eventually niche protection begins to dissolve.

Which leads me back to the question: So why bother with niche protection?

I mean seriously, you're argument seems to be that niche protection doesn't create problems for non-standard parties because you can work around it and overcome it with enough work and rules mastery.

Kind of a lame duck argument.  I'd say that the fact that niche protection is something you have to work around to make non-standard party effective is problematic.

Either way you split it, niche protection ends up trumping player choice.  Either way a player's choice in character ends up having to take other player's characters into account.

That isn't necessarily a problem -- some games actually make character creation a group process -- but it still contributes to the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that plagues traditional games.  Too many games claim you can play anything you want, when the fact is that you can't, and players frequently have to sacrifice their concept at the altar of self-defeating game design.

QuoteNow, if you wanted to (say) complain that natural healing or mundane use of the heal skill is gimped, I'm right with you. But clerics aren't the only healers, and can be equaled or surpassed in that role by members of other classes.

Pfft.  I seriously doubt that.  The spontaneous healing spells is a huge advantage, because it allows the cleric to memorize spells other than healing spells and then swap them out when needed, and the cleric doesn't have to waste a single feat to get the ability.  A mage has to blow two feats to get the same ability, one to get Healing domain, another to get spontaneous healing spells.  The cleric can blow those same two feats on Augmented Healing and

QuoteAs for "telling your friends they're doing it wrong." Close but no. If your GM wants to run a combat heavy game (sounds like it from your description) he should say right off the bat "Hey guys, let's have some characters who are able to find their ass with two hands." And if the players just want to do some more laid back gonzo whatever, they might say as much to the GM. And if you are having problems with the other players or the GM, I would strongly advise that you tell them, rather than bitch to me about it. 'Cause... you know... there's really only so much I can do from here.

I wasn't bitching to you about it.  I was using it as an example of how the game promises one thing (freedom to make any character you want), but fails to actually deliver a game where that works.

The campaign I'm talking about (and several others I've participated in) ultimately self-destructed because several players really believed that they had that freedom, when the simple fact is that they don't.

Quote from: JackalopeI wasn't really talking specifically about D&D 3.5 when I made that statement, but rather D&D throughout the ages, from white box to red box to AD&D 1st to 2nd to D&D 3.  But yeah, okay, you're right, with a long enough list of feats, eventually niche protection begins to dissolve.

Which leads me back to the question: So why bother with niche protection?

I mean seriously, you're argument seems to be that niche protection doesn't create problems for non-standard parties because you can work around it and overcome it with enough work and rules mastery.

Kind of a lame duck argument.  I'd say that the fact that niche protection is something you have to work around to make non-standard party effective is problematic.

See... in a very general sense, this is why I prefer a character creation system based on feats or SAGA-esque talent trees and such.

But... the only real reason you pursue a "balanced" party (IME) is because you want an effective party. If you're using niches (built into the game or not) you're kind of already playing the "rules mastery" game.

And you "bother" with niche protection because you want effective parties. Each character gets x resources at character creation, and redundancy adds less to party capabilities than diversity*. Even a game that isn't designed for it still gets it to some extent.

*I could get into how secondary combatants and secondary healers add more to the party's capabilities than secondary members of any other role, but that doesn't help your tankless healerless party much. And the "healer" role can be eschewed by certain rulesets as well.

QuoteEither way you split it, niche protection ends up trumping player choice.  Either way a player's choice in character ends up having to take other player's characters into account.

I really don't see this as a bad thing so much. In any case, there's a certain degree of unlikelihood in a game that two identical characters show up. At least IME, YMMV, etc.

QuoteThat isn't necessarily a problem -- some games actually make character creation a group process -- but it still contributes to the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that plagues traditional games.  Too many games claim you can play anything you want, when the fact is that you can't, and players frequently have to sacrifice their concept at the altar of self-defeating game design.

Playing anything you want isn't my goal really. I don't particularly care for carebears in my Dungeons and Dragons for example. And... there's a difference between being able to play everything you want and being able to play everything you want and remain effective. Even I would be hard-pressed to build an effective character around cooking... and I'm the guy that cooked up the "vorpal pillows" build.

If you do want a game that "does it all," I suggest you look for a game that at least tries it (not going to argue whether it succeeds). GURPS, Tristat, some variation on M&M, True 20, whatever.

QuotePfft.  I seriously doubt that.  The spontaneous healing spells is a huge advantage, because it allows the cleric to memorize spells other than healing spells and then swap them out when needed, and the cleric doesn't have to waste a single feat to get the ability.  A mage has to blow two feats to get the same ability, one to get Healing domain, another to get spontaneous healing spells.  The cleric can blow those same two feats on Augmented Healing and

Well, sorc wouldn't need a second feat for spontaneity. If you want to get into secondary costs, you could always mention some that actually exist... mainly that you still have to learn the spells (they're on your class list but not on your spells known list). If you want to make your GM sweat, you could combine that feat with the dread necro class (or the warmage or the beguiler). Do you know the spells automatically or would you have to wait for advanced learning? I'm sure there's errata for it, but it's one of those rare rules hiccups.

And... dammit how did I get talking about this and what does it have to do with niche protection? Christ... I could write my friggin' thesis on this if I had to... which makes me sad to think about.

QuoteI wasn't bitching to you about it.  I was using it as an example of how the game promises one thing (freedom to make any character you want), but fails to actually deliver a game where that works.

The campaign I'm talking about (and several others I've participated in) ultimately self-destructed because several players really believed that they had that freedom, when the simple fact is that they don't.

The game works just fine... but yeah, you can't play anything you want and expect it all to turn out equally effective in combat. I... continue to not see why that is a bad thing, as long as people know that going into it.

EDIT: If I have a point anymore it's that niches emerge? And that there's really no more reason to "protect" them (and there's really little you can do to protect them beyond actually definitively making them mandatory) than there is to revile them. It's been fine for me and mines, in any case.

Beejazz's last post made me think of point that I have just been assuming. I am not opposed to niches, just being forced by the system to use niches. If I want to make a bastard child of a character mixed between fighthiefamgig then the system should aid that, not hose me and the group for it.

So, for me, it is a lot about choices in the system.

Bill

Quote from: beejazzSee... in a very general sense, this is why I prefer a character creation system based on feats or SAGA-esque talent trees and such.

Same here.

QuotePlaying anything you want isn't my goal really. I don't particularly care for carebears in my Dungeons and Dragons for example. And... there's a difference between being able to play everything you want and being able to play everything you want and remain effective. Even I would be hard-pressed to build an effective character around cooking... and I'm the guy that cooked up the "vorpal pillows" build.

I didn't mean "anything you want" in quite that expansive sense (it's a fair reading, I just didn't mean that).  I mean the rule books give you the sense that you get to create the character you want from the huge range of choices, and tweaked to your pleasure.  But anyone with some experience knows that only the first guy to yell out his concept really gets to play what he wants, and that you have to build towards the expectations of the game which, and this is the important part, aren't made explicit in the game.

That is, imho, shoddy design.  It's the impossible thing before breakfast, and it sucks.  I've played with far too many people who believe the game, and didn't understand why some campaigns were disasters and other worked.  And you can't point them to the section in the rules that tells you "You're party will probably fail if you don't have a dedicated healer, so make sure someone plays the cleric.  If no one wants to play the cleric, here's a rules mechanic to determine who gets first choice, second choice, so forth, so that the meekest guy in the group doesn't always get his choice hijacked and his role in the party determined by the more aggressive members of the troupe."

I know, I know.  :forge:

QuoteIf you do want a game that "does it all," I suggest you look for a game that at least tries it (not going to argue whether it succeeds). GURPS, Tristat, some variation on M&M, True 20, whatever.

Pfft.  My group has been on hiatus for a over a month.  I'm going to try to sell them on TMNT & Other Strangeness, a game with both limited choice (which the rules explicitly state the GM can limit further, down to essentially deciding what the players play) and no niche protection.

QuoteWell, sorc wouldn't need a second feat for spontaneity.

Yeah, but then you're playing a sorcerer, and you're already fucked.  No way is a sorcerer with some access to healing spells as effective as a cleric.

QuoteThe game works just fine... but yeah, you can't play anything you want and expect it all to turn out equally effective in combat. I... continue to not see why that is a bad thing, as long as people know that going into it.

Which they don't, because the actual rules as written pretty strongly imply the exact opposite.

Quote from: JackalopeI didn't mean "anything you want" in quite that expansive sense (it's a fair reading, I just didn't mean that).  I mean the rule books give you the sense that you get to create the character you want from the huge range of choices, and tweaked to your pleasure.  But anyone with some experience knows that only the first guy to yell out his concept really gets to play what he wants, and that you have to build towards the expectations of the game which, and this is the important part, aren't made explicit in the game.

What do you expect really? It's D&D, which means it pretty much has to cater to everybody. The other games don't know how easy they have it... they've all got a cozy little niche!:p

QuoteYeah, but then you're playing a sorcerer, and you're already fucked.  No way is a sorcerer with some access to healing spells as effective as a cleric.

Not all-around, but as a healer yes, I think so. The main disad here is the low hp and armor. You can get around that a number of ways, but... dang I don't want to get into it here! Man, I'd start a new thread on abusive and nonstandard healer builds, but I have the sneaking suspicion it'd just be you and me posting.

QuoteWhich they don't, because the actual rules as written pretty strongly imply the exact opposite.

I don't really get where the rules imply anything (at least with 3x... I know the other editions were pretty different in the sort of rules voice, but I thought they were more explicit about the incomplete nature of the game and how you'd have to make stuff up?). If anything, my experience with 3x is that this problem arises because *nothing* is really implied in that dry rules voice.

Quote from: beejazzWhat do you expect really? It's D&D, which means it pretty much has to cater to everybody. The other games don't know how easy they have it... they've all got a cozy little niche!:p

Not all-around, but as a healer yes, I think so. The main disad here is the low hp and armor. You can get around that a number of ways, but... dang I don't want to get into it here! Man, I'd start a new thread on abusive and nonstandard healer builds, but I have the sneaking suspicion it'd just be you and me posting.

I don't really get where the rules imply anything (at least with 3x... I know the other editions were pretty different in the sort of rules voice, but I thought they were more explicit about the incomplete nature of the game and how you'd have to make stuff up?). If anything, my experience with 3x is that this problem arises because *nothing* is really implied in that dry rules voice.

You have to first read the Introduction to the game.  Have you read it?  I owned the book for at least  a few years before I read it.  You seem like an old hand at this, and I'll bet you're like me and skip over the whole "What is role-playing?" section every game book has (the game I'm writing has a section titled "What is role-playing?" the text of the section is "Are you fucking kidding me?  This can't possibly be your first game.").  While not quite as fervant as 2nd Edition, the section does imply that you can make whatever you want given the rules presented.  The closest it comes to addressing the issue is one line:  "You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group."

:raise:

This is followed by exactly no explanation of what that means.

What are your players doing reading the Dungeon Master's Guide?:eek:

But yeah... I don't really use that thing except for the crunchy details. It's poorly written in my opinion, maybe out of a conscious attempt to avoid saying anything definitively? I'm sure there are numerous ways you could spin it the stuff it says. Moreover, even the crunch is badly organized in some places. Gear for starting characters at higher levels is something I end up having to scramble for every time (I really should bookmark it, now that I think of it.)

Quote from: beejazzWhat are your players doing reading the Dungeon Master's Guide?:eek:

I was quoting the Player's Handbook, page 6.

Quote from: JackalopeDude, you said that superhero groups almost never have character who overlap in niches, and that's simply not the case, as I illustrated with the Batman Family, which is the single most prominent team of supers ever, having starred in multiple comics, television shows, and several movies.  That's all.  You getting all worked up about it only makes you look like a doofus.

You're right, there are many superteams where all the heroes have different powers and fill very different niches.  The Fantastic Four are a perfect example.  But niche protection is not an essentially quality of superteams, and a team can still be very interesting even if every character in has the exact same set of power, as evidenced by the mega-popularity of the bat-squad featuring Batman, Robin, Batgirl and Nightwing.

I see you're a little short on reading comprehension. Let me refresh the memory a bit. What I actually said was...

Quote from: SigmundI'd say a supers game would almost have to have niches to even be a supers game, as it's a very strong theme in the genre that heroes powers would be wildly different from one another.

Never did I say niche protection was strong, just niches. Never did I say a given team wouldn't have multiples of heroes with similar power sets, just that niches are almost a defining feature of superhero media. Maybe strong archetypes would be a better label, whatever, still doesn't change the fact that you are attacking an arguement I hadn't even made, repeatedly using one or two examples out of all of comics history, and then saying I'm the doofus. I don't know you well enough to actually say outright that you're a dumb-ass troll, but you sure are acting like one in this thread. How about ya keep your [/sarcasm] and pathetic "panties bunch" bullshit to yourself and actually try to make a valid point instead.

Quote from: SigmundI don't know you well enough to actually say outright that you're a dumb-ass troll, but you sure are acting like one in this thread. How about ya keep your [/sarcasm] and pathetic "panties bunch" bullshit to yourself and actually try to make a valid point instead.

Oh bite me, you humorless son of a bitch.  Jesus. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see you are unable to make a decent point Jackalope.

Niche protection is either good or bad, depending on my mood. I'm fickle that way.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambNiche protection is either good or bad, depending on my mood. I'm fickle that way.

Some games I play have it, others don't. It's neither a selling point or a deal breaker for me, I'm not so much interested in system conceits as I am in their implementation viz a vis playability. If strong niche protection enhances my enjoyment of a particular game then I'm all for it.

Quote from: CthyAh, I see you are unable to make a decent point Jackalope.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: JackalopeOh bite me, you humorless son of a bitch.  Jesus. :rolleyes:

You're gonna hafta ask nicer than that.