If an ability isn't OP, then from an effects-based approach, there's no reason to nerf it. What I'm trying to say is that mechanical niche protection makes little sense in the effects-based world that SKR's post is pushing in the post that motivated this thread. That's not to disagree with Frogman55's description of events; he's much more informed in the evolution than I am. I'm just saying that would be a bad approach and inconsistent with what SKR is pushing in this post.
On the one hand, you have SKR saying level appropriate is level appropriate. A fairly extensive argument that the raw ability, its firepower, game effect, etc. is what matters. But, then we have to layer onto that the idea that some mechanics are also a class' particular bailiwick. So, channeling energy is the Cleric's deal, Crane Style (full disclosure, I have no idea what this ability does or did, I assume it's a kind of parry effect) is the Swashbuckler's, and so on.
The problem is how do you marry that to the effects-based approach? Or, put more pointedly, why is Freedom of Movement and Teleport and Dispel Magic on the table and "open" to other classes, but Channeling Energy or Parrying/Dodge effects isn't?
I'll readily concede that thematic limitations are the important thing. A huge thing, actually. But, I don't see an intelligible design principle here. Once you've classified teleporting as rogue-y and dispel magic as fighter-y, everything is pretty much up for grabs.
As a side note, it seems unlikely to me that, however you divide the thematic space, that "parrying" or "dodging" would be the bailiwick of one particular class. Or, that kung-fu masters or whatever Monks are supposed to be wouldn't have access to it. I also don't like Paizo's desire to silo abilities in various classes, essentially abandoning 3E's approach to multiclassing, but that's a personal preference.
