PDA

View Full Version : Why I love MAD in a game



YPU
2009-09-04, 05:21 PM
Yes, that might sound strange, but I would love for each and every class to suffer horrible Multiple Ability Disorder.
Why? Because, and this is getting rapidly apparent in my 4e game, having a choice when building characters is something I like.

I’ll give an example of what I am getting at here. The 3.5 Monk is often complained about for having extreme MAD. But, in a game where the entire party would be the same class a party of monks would be the most interesting. Why? MAD.

With classes that focus solely on one or two stats you can very easily guess somebody’s stats by class and level. It rather limits character building as well, since you really don’t gain all that much from not taking the highest possible in your main and secondary stat.

Of course wizards should have a high INT, they are wizards after all, but it would like for a game where that wizard who spend a few points les on INT and a few more on say, heck even STR would get something out of it. Sure the STR advantage for wizards would be a lot less then that of say fighters but if the system would compliment every class for taking any stat I think characters would look a lot more interesting.

quick_comment
2009-09-04, 05:30 PM
No.

MAD means you dont get to choose to be good at any one thing. It means you are good at no things.

Keld Denar
2009-09-04, 05:38 PM
MAD isn't a problem if you have really good scores from good rolls or high point buy. Even your 2ndary stats are pretty good, and you are very versatile.

Now, put a monk in 25 point buy. You need wisdom for your AC and your stunning, but you can only afford maybe a 14, because you have to spend points on Con so you don't die, Str so you can do damage, Dex for your skills and AC, and whatnot.

Basically, SAD is the LUXURY to have high 2ndary abilities, MAD is the REQUIREMENT to have high 2ndary abilities.

I'm much rather have my Wizard who is only dependant on Int have the ability to put extra points in Str, or Con, or Cha (charmin etc), or whatnot.

Make sense?

Kylarra
2009-09-04, 05:39 PM
SAD is better, with tangible benefits (beyond the norm) from having high secondary scores, which is something that most of the 4e classes model pretty well.

Guancyto
2009-09-04, 05:41 PM
This thread disappoints me for lacking anything to do with Harley Quinn. :smallfrown:

That is all.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-04, 06:28 PM
As has been noted, MAD doesn't mean you can build to different abilities, but rather you require too many of them to be useful. (A while back people tried to come up with a term to describe equal use of various abilities, like VAD for variable AD and such, but they aren't really used.) Enforcing MAD keeps power levels down; enforcing VAD keeps characters interesting, and the monk is most definitely the former.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-04, 06:31 PM
I perfer DAD (Dual ability dependency). Myself.
Like Wis and Dex for Shadow Blade Swordsages (one is for AC and other is damage).

Thrawn183
2009-09-04, 07:07 PM
I agree with the DAD. Favored Souls with Wis/Cha come to mind.

Saph
2009-09-04, 07:12 PM
It's worth pointing out that generally, the classes that require 2 or 3 ability scores tend to be the more balanced ones. If a class can afford to dump 3 or 4 ability scores, it's probably a sign that it wasn't all that well designed.

boomwolf
2009-09-04, 07:28 PM
MAD is bad.

VAD has great potential.

A character that gains a bonus form 4 or 5 or even all abilities but don't require any for basic function is probably the best way to go.

Monk is partially a VAD, but more a MAD.

STR is needed unless you go shuriken monk.
DEX is needed unless you go brute force and high WIS.
CON is needed for everyone, but a combatant needs alot.
INT is needed by everyone.
WIS is needed by any monk using his abilities. (could be avoided if flurry didn't suck.)
CHA is once more, dumped.

So basically you need at LEAST 3 ability scores to be a worthy monk, and the more the merrier.
On the other hand that belt that gives +6 to all abilities makes a real show with you using it.

valadil
2009-09-04, 07:29 PM
I’ll give an example of what I am getting at here. The 3.5 Monk is often complained about for having extreme MAD. But, in a game where the entire party would be the same class a party of monks would be the most interesting. Why? MAD.


Interesting, yes. Functional, no. I'd rather see MAD characters in a system other than D&D. If you're going to make classes that need every stat, all classes should work that way. I think this is a very interesting basis for a game, but it just doesn't work in a game where you already have SAD classes.

The best example of this I've ever seen is Star Wars d6. Every stat was useful. My character was a communications officer and ended up with straight 3s for his stats, and this was considered a good choice. I guess I would have liked to see a little more imbalance (maybe if there was an extra +1 or -1 floating so I had to pick a good or bad stat), but I vastly preferred this to having a dump stat.

AgentPaper
2009-09-04, 07:41 PM
While MAD in the traditional sense* is bad, I think what the OP is trying to say is that classes should be able to choose more what stats they want to put points into, which should effect how they perform, instead of being locked into what stats they take based on their class. For example, a wizard might get benefits from various stats as follows:

STR - Better offensive spells
CON - Better defensive spells
DEX - More accurate spells
INT - More spells
WIS - Better secondary effects
CHA - Harder to resist spells

So, if you want to be a controller type wizard, you would put points into CHA and WIS, while if you want to be a blaster wizard, you'd want STR and DEX. All wizards would want INT, to some degree, and some might also want CON especially if they're going into close combat.

*By which I mean, you need to have high scores in a large number of abilities to do your job decently.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-04, 08:09 PM
Yes, that might sound strange, but I would love for each and every class to suffer horrible Multiple Ability Disorder.
Why? Because, and this is getting rapidly apparent in my 4e game, having a choice when building characters is something I like.

MAD stands for Multiple Attribute Dependency. Also, it does not offer choices. It's called a dependency because you are actually dependent on those stats, you shouldn't be playing one at all if you don't have enough good rolls.

Also, this is just me but it sounds like it might be 4E you're frustrated with, as it doesn't center on building the way 3.5 does. You might consider playing some 3.5.


I’ll give an example of what I am getting at here. The 3.5 Monk is often complained about for having extreme MAD. But, in a game where the entire party would be the same class a party of monks would be the most interesting. Why? MAD.

Stats aren't really a very big part of character building options in the first place, in fact consider this. In a party of Wizards, just having all of them focused specialist in different things would immediately produce more variance than a similar party of monks. Even if you gave the Wizards all the same stats (with say... 40 point buy) and the monks could allocate whatever they wanted.

Further, in the case you're describing the monks would actually have less wiggle room in where to put their stats since they have multiple areas which they have no choice but to invest in if they want to be effective.


With classes that focus solely on one or two stats you can very easily guess somebody’s stats by class and level. It rather limits character building as well, since you really don’t gain all that much from not taking the highest possible in your main and secondary stat.

You can do the same with a Monk, at least with a similar degree of accuracy. Since they have their own requirements, it's just that they require more. Also, it's the Monk that limits character building. Consider, after that Wizard has their 18 int they actually make a decision about whether they'd prefer Dex for better ranged touch, Con for more HP, etc. Monks get no such choice. They either have enough for their basic needs or not, and very very rarely roll well enough to prioritize any other stats at all.


Of course wizards should have a high INT, they are wizards after all, but it would like for a game where that wizard who spend a few points les on INT and a few more on say, heck even STR would get something out of it. Sure the STR advantage for wizards would be a lot less then that of say fighters but if the system would compliment every class for taking any stat I think characters would look a lot more interesting.

That... makes little sense. Consider, you have a mathematician and a body builder. The Mathematician is naturally going to have been using their brain, and the body builder their muscles. Now, that doesn't mean the first is weaker than most people necessarily, nor that the second is stupid... but neither of them are going to be ignoring their actual abilities to the extent they're not as good at them so that they're better at something entirely unrelated.

Now, if you're proposing making Str actually useful for a Wizard to take to the extent that it actually helps them do their job... Well, I'd like to hear how.

seedjar
2009-09-04, 08:23 PM
Interesting observation, Saph. I think you're on to something.
I understand why MAD is generally considered bad. (Hurhurhur pun hurhur.) In your average game, vs. other optimized PCs, it would be pretty aggravating to contend with.
However, I can think of two conditions under which it's a lot better to be a MAD class than a SAD one:
- First: random loot. If you're playing with a group where the DM doesn't tailor treasure to the PCs' abilities, you have at least twice the chances to come upon a beneficial stat-boosting item as a MAD class. Not the biggest advantage, but I've always found it a lot easier to accumulate small bonuses to most of my stats than it is to find a way to get lots of big boosts that stack together.
- Second: ability damage. Unless your DM is obviously out to hose you, it's harder to casually interfere with a MAD class with ability damage effects. If ability damage is a threat to your MAD build, it's probably the case that either the attacker has enough power to bring one of your stats to 0 anyways, or they're doing double duty to target more than one stat and could probably make quicker work of one of your SAD compatriots. This isn't always the case, as it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation, but in most of the games I've played ability damage is already provokes such a bitter response that DMs don't push it very hard or often.
I've never had a problem with MAD classes myself. I don't play in games with much character optimization, nor do the players spend a lot of time comparing builds or damage output (besides for the occasional friendly PvP day.) Honestly, I never gave it much thought beyond, "Hey, that's weird," when I noticed the Favored Soul's casting mechanic. Before I learned the term online, I never even noticed that the Monk also falls into that category.
~Joe

Knaight
2009-09-04, 08:31 PM
I like having there be advantages and disadvantages to different attribute configurations. I also think this works better in a classless, skill based game. I also like varying numbers of attributes, to prevent dumping. Only people with magic get magic related attributes for example.

cZak
2009-09-06, 02:39 PM
For example, a wizard might get benefits from various stats as follows:

STR - Better offensive spells
CON - Better defensive spells
DEX - More accurate spells
INT - More spells
WIS - Better secondary effects
CHA - Harder to resist spells

Agentpaper

Awesome idea. Maybe something like...

Strength - Better offensive spells: Add strength mod to damage
Dexterity - More accurate spells: All spells require “to hit”; add dex mod to hit
Constitution - Better defensive spells:Add con mod to effect (AC, save bonus, etc...)
Intelligence - More spells: Standard
Wisdom - Better secondary effects
Charisma - Harder to resist spells: Determine spell save DC (vice Int, Wis)

Not sure what mechanic to adapt for the wisdom, tho.

cZak

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-06, 04:31 PM
While it is a good idea to have multiple abilities grant benefits, I don't think having every class gain benefits from all 6 abilities is necessarily a good idea. If you try to partition benefits across 6 scores, you tend to get uneven "clumps" of abilities that way (such as the example wizard, where Str and Dex are good for offense, Con is good for defense, and nothing boosts utility). Also, you tend to have somewhat illogical effects--Strength being associated with offense is a logical connection, but when it comes to spells, having bigger muscles or other sources of physical strength empower your magic doesn't really make too much sense.

A better goal, I think, would be aiming for 4 out of the 6 abilities granting benefits. In the wizard's case, there are essentially 3 variables a wizard cares about:
Number of spells
Spell DCs
Caster level (or other scaling spell effects)
Even these provide uneven bonuses, since a support/buff caster can basically ignore DCs, but otherwise they don't favor one style over another, as having more, more powerful spells is always better than having fewer, less powerful spells. To counteract the offense-oriented DC score, we could have a score that increases the duration of non-instantaneous spells (which are usually "effect" utility spells or buff spells). That would give something like the following:
Int: More spells, as the wizard's mind is better able to encompass the arcane energies. (bonus spells, as normal)
Cha: Higher DCs, as the wizard is able to put more "oomph" into his spells. (DCs, as normal)
Str: Longer durations, as the wizard's body is able to better able to handle the metaphysical strain of sustaining spells. (+Str in rounds, minutes, or whatever the unit is for the durations of "Effect" spells or spells affecting allies)
Wis: Higher variable effects, as the wizard has the understanding necessary to go beyond spells' normal limits (the wizard can exceed the CL cap by up to [Wis] if his CL is higher than the cap)
This ensures that the wizard values the abilities equally and that the distribution is logical...and also effectively favors all 6, because he'd still want Dex for AC/Ref/Init and Con for health, while allowing him to favor others instead if desired.

Crow
2009-09-06, 05:45 PM
I think a whole bunch of people missed the spirit behind the OP's post.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-06, 05:51 PM
I think a whole bunch of people missed the spirit behind the OP's post.

The spirit made us MAD. :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2009-09-06, 05:51 PM
I think a whole bunch of people missed the spirit behind the OP's post.

Yes. Very much so.

And I think it was pretty obvious, no less.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-06, 06:06 PM
I agree with the OP. DnD definitely doesn't value all stats equally for any class, and those that do so more are at a marked disadvantage.

However, I've played games that did use all stats heavily, and appropriately(7th Sea springs to mind), and it did tend torwards both somewhat more balanced and much more flavorful characters. It also makes decisions to specialize in one stat much more difficult, unlike D&D.

Kylarra
2009-09-06, 06:19 PM
I think a whole bunch of people missed the spirit behind the OP's post.
More like we were correcting his terminology. Hard to communicate without a common frame of reference.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-06, 06:37 PM
I think a whole bunch of people missed the spirit behind the OP's post.

The spirit behind it was, as far as I can tell, "It's better to be MAD because having multiple abilities you can focus on means you're less cookie-cutter than other classes, and multiple different abilities should give you benefits." Most of the thread has been spent pointing out that the first part isn't really true, and then suggesting various methods for making the second part be true because at the moment very few classes fit that mold.

rezplz
2009-09-06, 08:07 PM
The only RPG system I've played other than D&D was Runequest. Since it was a skill-based RPG with no level system at all it was very MAD, as the more you specialized the more difficult it was to improve in that specialization. So it was advantageous to learn a bit of several different things, and the more customization/rounded characters lead to a lot of fun.

In D&D, I've always thought it would be interesting to have a party of all bards. (Medieval rock band?) One bard could focus on melee, one on spellcasting, one on being stealthy, one on diplomancy/healing. It might be a bit difficult, but since bards are fairly MAD it could be done. And after every battle, you could rock out. 8)!

Draz74
2009-09-06, 10:08 PM
I agree with the OP. One of my complaints about 4e is how close to completely useless 3 scores are for most characters.

I like classes like, say, the Swordsage.

STR: Very nice for extra weapon damage on top of whatever strikes do. Sometimes even for attack rolls (some Swordsages don't actually take Weapon Finesse).

DEX: Very popular for a number of reasons.

CON: You're a melee guy with d8 hit dice and a poor Fortitude. Yeah. And you even find Concentration checks important sometimes.

INT: You have a great class skill list. Admittedly this is still probably the least important stat. Better, at least, than INT dependency for many 4e classes.

WIS: Will save, Spot/Listen, Sense Motive (with Setting Sun utility added in), AC, damage, save DCs. Extremely important (yet still optional for some builds).

CHA: Not very important, but you do have some useful Charisma skills on your class list, and even some maneuver-boosting utility from the Intimidate skill. Better than many 4e classes' dependencies, at least.

So yeah. I think MAD is a very good thing in game design; call it VAD instead if you want. VAD is really just "MAD, but on a class that's strong enough to deal with it." But it does lead to a greater variety of characters, just like the OP said.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-06, 10:12 PM
I like the idea of mono-class parties. The only one I've ever actually been in was an all-rogue party, and honestly, it was a blast.

All bards is, while probably not terribly optimized, an awesome mental image. Basically, medieval band with weapon skills. Bonus cool points if you manage to build your weapons into your instruments.

But anyhow, Im rambling again...as a balance issue, it's difficult to balance MAD and SAD classes against each other, and SAD offers less tough choices in character creation and improvements, so...MAD heavy design tends to be best, but needs to be applied consistently.

Eldariel
2009-09-06, 10:31 PM
While the terminology in the OP is wrong (as pointed out many times, MAD specifically means you need multiple attributes thus having even less freedom as to how to apply your points; SAD classes are better for this), I get the idea and sorta agree, but really, the problem is in the stat system:
Most stats provide you with too little unless your class is built around the stat.

The spread is something like:
Str: Melee damage, melee to hit, carrying capacity, physical skills obsoleted by magic
Dex: Ranged attacks, initiative, AC, Reflex saves, physical skills not obsoleted by magic, key combat feat
Con: HP, Fortitude saves, concentration
Int: Skill points, Knowledges, Roguish skills, key combat feat
Wis: Will-saves, "defensive" skills
Cha: Social skills, UMD, (Leadership)

So they aren't made equal. Strength looks awesome...until you realize that characters not fighting in melee get nothing but carrying capacity out of it.

Dexterity has just the most stuff and obviously everyone cares about Initiative; it's valued highly by everyone for obvious reasons.

Constitution governs your HP, the single most universally relevant resource in the game, along with stopping you from just plain dying so it's obviously huge. Also, the most important caster skill.

Intelligence governs skillpoints, something everyone wants (but doesn't need), along with a couple of really useful skills.

Wisdom covers the most important save and some of the most important skills ('cause you need 'em passively), but the save can be protected with certain spells and it's enough for one party member to have the skills much of the time.

Charisma...well, it has Use Magic Device and social skills which only one character needs..


This leaves us with Charisma and Strength really lacking, Wisdom somewhat lacking and Dexterity bursting from its seams. Intelligence is about in the right place, Constitution a bit too important (low-Con character = suicide). Fixing that imbalance would make the system work much better.

More specifically, enabling especially low-Con characters somewhat (dunno how; make base HP higher across the board?) and making Strength, Charisma and Wisdom have larger general benefits would go a long way here. I personally like to do saves the 4e way; tying them to two stats lessens the issue with abysmally low saves and e.g. makes low Con character with some Str somewhat more doable. In other words, it makes compensating more doable - like it! Other than that, need new stuff to bind to the skills.


Str can take movement speed bonus/penalty pretty naturally, Wisdom could e.g. nab initiative (or move skillpoints to Wisdom, Initiative to Int; maybe split physical skills to Dex and mental to Wis), Charisma could influence opening GP and action points (if used) or something of the sort. Maybe Charisma could also allow you to act some rounds at negative HP or some such. That, after all, is an act of Will-power.

aje8
2009-09-06, 10:41 PM
I’ll give an example of what I am getting at here. The 3.5 Monk is often complained about for having extreme MAD. But, in a game where the entire party would be the same class a party of monks would be the most interesting. Why? MAD.

With classes that focus solely on one or two stats you can very easily guess somebody’s stats by class and level. It rather limits character building as well, since you really don’t gain all that much from not taking the highest possible in your main and secondary stat.

Um, yes you can guess someones stats by class and level. BUT that doesn't make it fundamentally more interesting. In fact, alll those monks have indentical class features albeit with different ability scores.

A SAD all Wizard party on the other hand, have completely different class features in a manner speaking as their only real class features are spells and it's in their best interests to have all different spells. This is probably going to be the more interesting party despite their similair ability scores.



Str can take movement speed bonus/penalty pretty naturally, Wisdom could e.g. nab initiative (or move skillpoints to Wisdom, Initiative to Int; maybe split physical skills to Dex and mental to Wis), Charisma could influence opening GP and action points (if used) or something of the sort. Maybe Charisma could also allow you to act some rounds at negative HP or some such. That, after all, is an act of Will-power.

Disagree. Con is by far the most overpowered stat IMO. I've never seen anyone dump con. However, I've seen characters dump dex all the time. Almost every character needs a con of 12 or 14 just to stay alive. Fighters and other tanks want it as high as possible perferably like 16-18. Dex? Who needs it. Ability score mod is rapidly out classed by skill ranks anyway and what skill other than tumble do you really need at the higher levels? Ranged attacks are obviously irrelevant to all but the most focused of builds. Honestly the main benefits I see to Dex are the AC and Intiative things which aren't enough to give it the nod over Con IMO, but it probably the 2nd best stat and it's certainly close.

icefractal
2009-09-06, 10:46 PM
One thing I'd note though, is that evenly distributed abilities don't automatically make a character any more interesting or natural. A character with all 14s seems less interesting than one with a spread from 8 to 18, IMO.

So to my mind, a system where you ideally want to spread your point evenly because you need every ability is not the goal. One where you do focus on some abilties, but those can vary even between members of the same class, would be better.

And of course, it's important to remember that there's more than ability scores to a character. A character with an interesting personality and cookie-cutter ability scores is far more memorable than a bland character with "organic" ability selection.

Eldariel
2009-09-06, 10:56 PM
Disagree. Con is by far the most overpowered stat IMO. I've never seen anyone dump con. However, I've seen characters dump dex all the time. Almost every character needs a con of 12 or 14 just to stay alive. Fighters and other tanks want it as high as possible perferably like 16-18. Dex? Who needs it. Ability score mod is rapidly out classed by skill ranks anyway and what skill other than tumble do you really need at the higher levels? Ranged attacks are obviously irrelevant to all but the most focused of builds. Honestly the main benefits I see to Dex are the AC and Intiative things which aren't enough to give it the nod over Con IMO, but it probably the 2nd best stat and it's certainly close.

What exactly do you disagree with? I mentioned that Con is a bit too important; I just stated Dexterity has the most stuff ('cause it does - nothing ties to as many things as Dex). I noted that I feel Con needs a decrease in importance, whether it be through increasing natural HP or whatever, I can't say.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-06, 11:00 PM
One thing I'd note though, is that evenly distributed abilities don't automatically make a character any more interesting or natural. A character with all 14s seems less interesting than one with a spread from 8 to 18, IMO.


This is true, but It'd be interesting to see a wizard actually think about if the charisma hit is worth it to max his int.

Enforcing roughly equal stats is a bit dreary, IMO, but seeing a wide variety of good stat builds for each class would be interesting.

Yukitsu
2009-09-06, 11:02 PM
This is true, but It'd be interesting to see a wizard actually think about if the charisma hit is worth it to max his int.

Enforcing roughly equal stats is a bit dreary, IMO, but seeing a wide variety of good stat builds for each class would be interesting.

You'd like most of my wizards then. I've only had one wizard with a low charisma (8), but the majority tend to have charisma as their second highest stat.

Draz74
2009-09-06, 11:21 PM
Str can take movement speed bonus/penalty pretty naturally,
And/or nerf magic so that it doesn't replace STR-based skills. At least the nice thing about the Climb skill is that often, if anyone in the party needs to do it, everyone does, as opposed to e.g. the social skills.


Wisdom could e.g. nab initiative (or move skillpoints to Wisdom, Initiative to Int; maybe split physical skills to Dex and mental to Wis), Charisma could influence opening GP and action points (if used) or something of the sort. Maybe Charisma could also allow you to act some rounds at negative HP or some such. That, after all, is an act of Will-power.

I favor systems that shuffle around the mental stats a little bit so they make more sense. INT represents both deep, complex intellect, and quickness-cleverness of thought. Those should really be separate things IMHO. Wisdom used to represent willpower, but ever since they broadened Charisma to include willpower, Wisdom has come up a little lacking, representing mostly just physical awareness. I can see why they made the change, though -- old Charisma represented mostly "presence," a trait that is an important part of a character but is hard (and sometimes just silly) to represent mechanically, and often is best left up to pure roleplaying.

I currently favor a system that includes Intellect (including sheer willpower), Wit (including social skills and quick cleverness), and Perception (including presence to some extent, since it means you understand people well). Intellect governs Will saves and Knowledge-type skills. Wit governs initiative, some social skills, and skill tricks (no score governs skill points). Perception governs "defensive" skills and Diplomacy, and might still need a bit of a boost. Most spellcasting is dependent on all three scores.

I've also seen a good system that has Wit (including cleverness and awareness), Intelligence (intellect), and Charisma (presence and willpower). Wit governs "defensive" skills and initiative, Intelligence governs skill points, and Charisma governs social skills and Will saves.

As long as we're talking about changing the system, just making social skills more powerful, more structured could also reduce the "we only need one person to be the 'party face'" syndrome.

Eldariel
2009-09-06, 11:26 PM
And/or nerf magic so that it doesn't replace STR-based skills. At least the nice thing about the Climb skill is that often, if anyone in the party needs to do it, everyone does, as opposed to e.g. the social skills.

The principal issue with this is that nobody can afford skillpoints in all the skills and as such, if you can't replace them with magic, many obstacles will simply be uncrossable. You'd need to vastly increase the amount of skill points characters get per level to make requiring any skills in any way reasonable.

But yeah, your mental stat shuffle seems sensible. Though again, if requiring some face skills from everyone...well, the stats need to be thus that there's a drawback to a low score, but not a crippling one. In my games, we've been each rolling Diplomacy-checks often due to weird circumstances, but it's really annoying when your Dervish can't afford Tumble anymore 'cause he needs Diplomacy now... Really, the whole "insufficient skill points" syndrome shines all over these ideas.

Roderick_BR
2009-09-06, 11:51 PM
4E is not exactly MAD. MAD means you need to be good at everything. 4E kinda avoid it by allowing you to select a SAD, DAD at best. But we can see what you meant.

Sophismata
2009-09-07, 12:06 AM
WIS is needed by any monk using his abilities. (could be avoided if flurry didn't suck.)

On the other hand that belt that gives +6 to all abilities makes a real show with you using it.

May I ask - why does flurry suck (apart from the weapon restrictions), and what is this belt?

Draz74
2009-09-07, 01:09 AM
May I ask - why does flurry suck (apart from the weapon restrictions), and what is this belt?

Flurry sucks because you can't move and use it in the same turn, which means it contradicts the Monk's features that are supposed to make him mobile. Also because that -2 to hit can really hurt when your chances of hitting already weren't great (thanks to the Monk's not-Good-BAB as a melee combatant).

The Belt is an item from the Miniatures Handbook. If you really need all six stats, getting the Belt of Magnificence is a little cheaper than boosting them all individually. Optimizers rarely buy the Belt anymore, ever since the Magic Item Compendium came out with new rules about adding ability boosts to magic items.


The principal issue with this is that nobody can afford skillpoints in all the skills and as such, if you can't replace them with magic, many obstacles will simply be uncrossable. You'd need to vastly increase the amount of skill points characters get per level to make requiring any skills in any way reasonable.

But yeah, your mental stat shuffle seems sensible. Though again, if requiring some face skills from everyone...well, the stats need to be thus that there's a drawback to a low score, but not a crippling one. In my games, we've been each rolling Diplomacy-checks often due to weird circumstances, but it's really annoying when your Dervish can't afford Tumble anymore 'cause he needs Diplomacy now... Really, the whole "insufficient skill points" syndrome shines all over these ideas.
Good points, although reducing the number of different skills in the game can go a long way towards fixing the dearth of skill points too.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-09-07, 01:31 AM
This came off as kind of ranty so I decided to spoiler it.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but just because you might have some options on a MAD class as to what your necessary (yet necessarily-secondary abilities) are, doesn't mean you are creating something unique. Or whatever.

Its just a variation of the class. And all classes can basically be described as variations to the basic format. Classes are classes, and by picking different than usual abilities scores you are just creating sub-classes of those classes.

Just like in 4e, if I was playing a strength based paladin, I would call him a Strength Based Paladin. Or a TWF ranger a TWF ranger, whatever.

So why would a party of all Monks be so interesting to you? The strength based one will be built like many other strength based ones, the skill monkey just like other skill monkeys, the WIS guy based highly on other WIS monks. So assuming this would somehow work, you are basically left with a normal party, all based around frameworks that when you say "I am playing a Strength Based monk", everyone will know what your talking about. Just like with any other class in the game.

It may be new or exciting or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that you are basically playing the same frameworks as everyone else (melee dps, healer, etc), only you decided to take a large and unnecessary detour during character creation.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

Eldariel
2009-09-07, 01:33 AM
Good points, although reducing the number of different skills in the game can go a long way towards fixing the dearth of skill points too.

I personally like the specialization available; my hamfisted answer is to just give every class 6-8 extra sps per level. It works surprisingly well.

Kylarra
2009-09-07, 01:41 AM
4E is not exactly MAD. MAD means you need to be good at everything. 4E kinda avoid it by allowing you to select a SAD, DAD at best. But we can see what you meant.
I really like 4e's cutting the necessary defensive stats in half by doubling them up. It does make for a few classes that require tertiary stats beyond their secondaries, but that's really unavoidable.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-07, 03:46 AM
I’ll give an example of what I am getting at here. The 3.5 Monk is often complained about for having extreme MAD. But, in a game where the entire party would be the same class a party of monks would be the most interesting. Why? MAD.
I disagree: a party of all casters would be "most interesting" because they can have radically different spells known or memorized. A party of all rogues or bards would be "most interesting" because they can all have different skills known or specialized in. A party of all fighters would be "most interesting" because they can all have different feat trees.



With classes that focus solely on one or two stats you can very easily guess somebody’s stats by class and level.
Ironically, then, all 4E classes focus solely on one or two stats (although you generally have two options as to which the second is), and get slim to marginal benefit out of the other four stats.

Killer Angel
2009-09-07, 04:35 AM
So why would a party of all Monks be so interesting to you? The strength based one will be built like many other strength based ones, the skill monkey just like other skill monkeys, the WIS guy based highly on other WIS monks. So assuming this would somehow work, you are basically left with a normal party, all based around frameworks that when you say "I am playing a Strength Based monk", everyone will know what your talking about. Just like with any other class in the game.

It may be new or exciting or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that you are basically playing the same frameworks as everyone else (melee dps, healer, etc), only you decided to take a large and unnecessary detour during character creation.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

Not so ranty, and I see your point.
It's the same when you say "tripper" or "charger": they are both fighter, with a well defined build.
Still, I think the OP's point could be reduced to this: a Wizard has an high Int, no matter his specialization or his spells' choice. If the wiz. could have real adventages in keeping also Cha high, you'll have more variety. Yes, you'll have the build "Social Wizard" (or how you want to call him) and it will be a well defined build, with some spells mechanically better than others, but at least there would be no more the mental equation: "Wiz = high int, low cha".
Which is true, even if in the end, I agree more with you and Kurald Galain.


I disagree: a party of all casters would be "most interesting" because they can have radically different spells known or memorized.

I'm preparing a Crawl with a party of pre-made characters: 5 brothers, all of them sorcerers. No one is equal to the others, they are very well defined and unique.
You're right, but still, for all of them, the dump stat is strenght.

Eldariel
2009-09-07, 10:46 AM
I'm preparing a Crawl with a party of pre-made characters: 5 brothers, all of them sorcerers. No one is equal to the others, they are very well defined and unique.
You're right, but still, for all of them, the dump stat is strenght.

So no Gishes? I can honestly see uses for every stat on a Wizard, or a Sorcerer for that matter. A strong Sorcerer can be a frontliner on low levels just fine and becomes a fine Fighter/Wizard later on.

A charismatic Wizard is great for an Enchanter or a Binder. High Wis Wizard can make a lot of use of Arcane Disciple for some spell list enhancement and high Con, Dex & Int are obvious. But yeah, not every archetype benefits of every stat, which I feel is the issue here.