How to fix MAD and SAD

[alchemyprime]

Here is my main problem I am facing, Playground.

Some classes are SAD. Oh so SAD. Sorcerer, Wizard, Psion.

Some classes are MAD. Too MAD. Paladin, monk, ranger.

I want all classes to just be a little MAD. Basically, make every class have two stats that are imperative.

I was trying to think of which stats these should be, and how to implement it.

To look at the list I want to use for "core" (or at least as core as I'm getting).

Now, I am also fond of each class having multiple paths available to them. Similar to how wizards can specialize in Pathfinder, but available to everyone.

Barbarian - Strength and Constitution seem like the key fits here, but maybe make a possible Strength and Dexterity build and a Dexterity and Constitution build.
Bard - I think Bards should be all about Dexterity, Intelligence and/or Charisma.
Cleric - The cleric seems to me it's on the right path, but Wisdom is already super important. Perhaps bringing up Charisma a bit to make them a bit more on par?
Druid - I think Druids should be Wisdom and Constitution myself. Maybe refluff it that they need Wisdom to know how to access the spells (spell levels available/Spell DCs) but need Constitution to utilize it (bonus spells per day).
Fighter - Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence. Pick two. I've always been fond of the "smart" fighter. He didn't just swing his sword hard enough to cut your muscles, he cut your hamstrings and now you're slowed.
Monk - Oh boy, the monk. We need to get rid of it's reliance on Strength and Constitution. Dexterity and Wisdom should be the name of the game for this guy, but I can see a Constitution and Wisdom based build based around Iron Body fighting techniques (a tank monk?).
Paladin - I want casting to be either Wisdom or Charisma, and I'm leaning towards Wisdom for EVERYTHING on this guy. Maybe make an Arcane version, like a new Duskblade or Swordmage for Charisma.
Ranger - Get rid of Wisdom. I've always allowed my players to drop the more mystical elements (the spellcasting, natch) and replace it with a martial maneuver path similar to a fusion of the swordsage and the warblade (a slower progression and only a few schools). Also, tie the combat training to their maneuvers, maybe using some of the schools seen on these boards.
Rogue - Rogue isn't too bad. He's always seemed to be Dexterity and Intelligence primarily to me. Maybe give him some kind of rogue talent to replace UMD's ability with Intelligence after a certain level?
Sorcerer - What else can sorcerer's need besides Charisma?
Warlock - Charisma and Dexterity seem to both be pretty important to this guy. I kind of like him as he is, in that you're best with a high both, but playable with only one. I wish more casters acted like the Warlock.
MarshalWarlord - Strength and Intelligence are your friend with the Warlord. I want him to be like a martial paladin - Inspiring folks with auras, doing cool martial maneuvers, and maybe not healing folks but inspiring them to ignore the pain.
Wizard - See Sorcerer, but use Intelligence instead of Charisma.

So to sum up:

How do we make the Cleric more reliant on Charisma, and what other stats would we make the Sorcerer and Wizard reliant on? And how?

[ImperiousLeader]

This may cause some outrage, since other classes that follow this model are considered horribly underpowered, but for spellcasters, make spell DC and bonus spells be determined by different stats.

So, a cleric would gain bonus spells for high wisdom, but determine spell DC from his charisma.

For wizards, Intelligence determines bonus spells, but spell DC is set by your choice of school specialization.

General, Abjuration, Illusion and Divination - Wisdom
Necromancy and Transmutation - Constitution
Conjuration, Evocation and Enchantment - Charisma

[Mordokai]

I seriously hope this won't sound flaming or derogatory or anything like it buuuut... play 4E?

No, I'm not trying to start edition wars. But if I can give 4E one credit it's the lack of SAD and MAD. Sure, certain classes are still more reliant on one stat than others, but in all, every class has two ability scores that relies heavily upon, a tertiary that is kinda nice to have(and doesn't even need to be CON), but can totally do without. The other three can easily be overlooked.

[Ajadea]

Charisma has always struck me as the stat you use to impose your will on the world. Wisdom, by D&D rules, bolsters inner willpower, lets you throw off enchantments and illusions and such because you are so firmly grounded in reality. You know who you are, you know what the world is. Magic doesn't follow the rules of the world. Magic makes the rules shut up, sit down, and crawl away to cry in a corner. The caster looks at the laws of physics and says Screw The Rules, I Make Them.

Charisma-based DCs would both make sense to me and add some MAD to the wizard and cleric. It also makes the sorcerer and the wizard able to compete with each other. The sorcerer doesn't need nerfing.

Base the paladin off Charisma and Strength, with a feat to transfer that Charisma base to Wisdom. A paladin wins because they know they will succeed. They are sure of themselves. That can easily be their downfall, but it makes them champions of good.

A druid having Wisdom based spellcasting makes sense though, can't help you there.

[jseah]

For wizard, I would play on the flexibility of the class's spell selection.

Instead of 2 free spells per level, you get wisdom bonus free spells per level (minimum 0)

[Nerdanel]

Another approach could be to just hand out free stat increases to MAD classes as class features on certain levels, like how War Hulk gets Str increases. The worse the MAD and weaker the class, the more frequent these should be. A monk should get +2 to some predetermined stat rather often.

[alchemyprime]

I seriously hope this won't sound flaming or derogatory or anything like it buuuut... play 4E?

No, I'm not trying to start edition wars. But if I can give 4E one credit it's the lack of SAD and MAD. Sure, certain classes are still more reliant on one stat than others, but in all, every class has two ability scores that relies heavily upon, a tertiary that is kinda nice to have(and doesn't even need to be CON), but can totally do without. The other three can easily be overlooked.

Well, you see, I truly enjoy 4e, as do my players. But we also like 3.5/Pathfinder's mechanics, and so we are trying to make a hybrid system for games that gives us the 3.5 feel with a touch closer to 4e's balance and philosophy. We are already quite happy with the Fighter class we have created, and the Ranger fixes have made it a much more interesting class, especially when we made animal companion optional (the other options are just as fun).

So this is more just for the fun of it rather than trying to tie my stomach into knots.




Another approach could be to just hand out free stat increases to MAD classes as class features on certain levels, like how War Hulk gets Str increases. The worse the MAD and weaker the class, the more frequent these should be. A monk should get +2 to some predetermined stat rather often.


Not too bad, but I have other systems in place to emulate ability score advancements in other areas. Namely, I expanded the Paragon classes (we plan on making them 10 levels) and we have a Trait system that can bump scores pretty high already.

But we can look into maybe adjusting using this as a spring board. Thanks.

[Engine]

For classes with MAD most of the times I simply give them more starting points.

[kyoryu]

I seriously hope this won't sound flaming or derogatory or anything like it buuuut... play 4E?

No, I'm not trying to start edition wars. But if I can give 4E one credit it's the lack of SAD and MAD. Sure, certain classes are still more reliant on one stat than others, but in all, every class has two ability scores that relies heavily upon, a tertiary that is kinda nice to have(and doesn't even need to be CON), but can totally do without. The other three can easily be overlooked.

While 4E doesn't go quite as MAD/SAD as 3.x, it does have some level of differentiation with A- and V-classes. So while it might not go to the extreme, the problem still exists to some level.

[Kylarra]

While 4E doesn't go quite as MAD/SAD as 3.x, it does have some level of differentiation with A- and V-classes. So while it might not go to the extreme, the problem still exists to some level.It is worth pointing out though, that unlike MAD classes in 3.X which need their multiple stats to compete, the V-classes in 4e can do just fine by choosing one to focus on if they have the appropriate power book to expand their options.

[kyoryu]

It is worth pointing out though, that unlike MAD classes in 3.X which need their multiple stats to compete, the V-classes in 4e can do just fine by choosing one to focus on if they have the appropriate power book to expand their options.

True. Just wanted to point out, as a 4e fan, that 4e doesn't entirely solve the problem either :D In the interests of fairness.

[Khantin]

You can bridge the gap a little by removing ability score increases every fourth level and replacing it with point buy increases. If you add 1 point buy per level from 1-10, and 2/level from 11-20, SAD classes end up the same stats at level 20 whereas MAD classes get more due to lower costs.

[Kylarra]

True. Just wanted to point out, as a 4e fan, that 4e doesn't entirely solve the problem either :D In the interests of fairness.Eh, with splats, ie the appropriate powers book (or setting book in the case of warlock), they've effectively "solved" the V-class issue by giving enough viable powers for either type, therefore making specific branches of the class effectively SAD. Sure you could play towards trying to pick powers from both sides, but you don't need to.

Without splats, I would agree that the V-classes are similar to the MAD issue, to a lesser extent of course.

[Psyren]

I seriously hope this won't sound flaming or derogatory or anything like it buuuut... play 4E?

No, I'm not trying to start edition wars. But if I can give 4E one credit it's the lack of SAD and MAD. Sure, certain classes are still more reliant on one stat than others, but in all, every class has two ability scores that relies heavily upon, a tertiary that is kinda nice to have(and doesn't even need to be CON), but can totally do without. The other three can easily be overlooked.

Doesn't leveling in 4e give you boosts to two ability scores at once? And not only that, but at 11 and 21, you boost them all. MAD is almost a non-issue there. If you could do that in 3.5 MAD wouldn't be a problem there either.

[Mordokai]

While 4E doesn't go quite as MAD/SAD as 3.x, it does have some level of differentiation with A- and V-classes. So while it might not go to the extreme, the problem still exists to some level.

A class? V class? You'll forgive me if I don't know what those terms reffer to.


Doesn't leveling in 4e give you boosts to two ability scores at once? And not only that, but at 11 and 21, you boost them all. MAD is almost a non-issue there. If you could do that in 3.5 MAD wouldn't be a problem there either.

I guess you could go that way, without the +1 increase to all ability scores at level 11 and 21, since in most games, the game stops at level 20. Or you could introduce tiers into 3.5 as well... where they would be set will be the task for somebody better at crunching numbers.

However, if you'd go that way, you'd pretty much have to remove all the ability enhanching items as well, which is also a big part of 4E.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Barbarian - Strength and Constitution seem like the key fits here, but maybe make a possible Strength and Dexterity build and a Dexterity and Constitution build.

I like the strength and con, but I think separating the barbarian from strength is a little bizarre. Maybe a strength and constitution build and a strength and dexterity build? You've got a "powerhouse" build, and a "Whirling Frenzy" build.


Bard - I think Bards should be all about Dexterity, Intelligence and/or Charisma.

I feel like bards are perfect as is in this regard, actually. Why use different paths? Giving different point values seems to already work. A build with high int will have better skills, while one with high charisma will be a better spellcaster, and one with better dexterity would be a better fighter.


Cleric - The cleric seems to me it's on the right path, but Wisdom is already super important. Perhaps bringing up Charisma a bit to make them a bit more on par?

You could make spellcasting as the favored soul. Wisdom for spells per day/strongest spell level, charisma for spell resistance. More charisma makes a stronger cleric against enemies: better focus on wisdom makes a better cleric for allies.


Druid - I think Druids should be Wisdom and Constitution myself. Maybe refluff it that they need Wisdom to know how to access the spells (spell levels available/Spell DCs) but need Constitution to utilize it (bonus spells per day).

This is the hardest one of all, actually. To make druids less SAD, you need to change wild shape.


Fighter - Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence. Pick two. I've always been fond of the "smart" fighter. He didn't just swing his sword hard enough to cut your muscles, he cut your hamstrings and now you're slowed.

Honestly, how does one fix this? The fighter is formed entirely by bonus feats. Theoretically, you can pick a combat style that utilizes any stats, if you give the right feat access.


Monk - Oh boy, the monk. We need to get rid of it's reliance on Strength and Constitution. Dexterity and Wisdom should be the name of the game for this guy, but I can see a Constitution and Wisdom based build based around Iron Body fighting techniques (a tank monk?).

Give monks weapon finesse as a bonus feat. Pump up flurry. Wisdom to hit points would be a nice move as well. Sure it wouldn't be enough, but it would be a start. Maybe pounce later on too.


Paladin - I want casting to be either Wisdom or Charisma, and I'm leaning towards Wisdom for EVERYTHING on this guy. Maybe make an Arcane version, like a new Duskblade or Swordmage for Charisma.

I want to say charisma is a better choice. Paladins needn't worship a God, and generally charisma stands for mystical power within the self. Plus it has good synergy for a leadership paladin, which just has a lot of game based synergy. make spellcasting all charisma, and wisdom will be gone. They need strength and charisma and con. I know that's three and you didn't want that, but it just makes sense. Perhaps more smites would make strength less important.

I'll keep going later.

[Kylarra]

A class? V class? You'll forgive me if I don't know what those terms reffer to.A-classes are classes that have one primary score and two secondary (example: Wizard, Int primary, wis/cha for riders), V-classes are classes that have 2 primary scores and one secondary (example: Paladin, Str & Cha primaries, with Wis riders). For reference, primary stats are the ones that govern attacks and secondary are riders.

The early problem was that in initial printing, there was simply not enough equal support for the legs of the V-classes. With splats, I posit that this is no longer a significant issue.

[Psyren]

I guess you could go that way, without the +1 increase to all ability scores at level 11 and 21, since in most games, the game stops at level 20. Or you could introduce tiers into 3.5 as well... where they would be set will be the task for somebody better at crunching numbers.

However, if you'd go that way, you'd pretty much have to remove all the ability enhanching items as well, which is also a big part of 4E.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ability enchanting items" - if you mean items that boost attributes, 3.5 has plenty.

By tiers I assume you mean Paragon and Epic, but 3.5 doesn't need those - that's what PrCs are for.

My point is - if 4e had "1 attribute at a time" advancement like 3.5 does, and the same kinds of challenges, it would have MAD problems too. The game expects you to have more than one high score and more than one high defense. The difference is that 4e gives every class the tools to do this built-in. In 3.5, only casters have that.

[alchemyprime]

@Lord.Sorasen

Bards: I agree, I do like them best as they are. I'm also scaling power up a little for most of the classes, and it seemed they ended up becoming able to be focused on two abilities is all.

Fighters: I took Pathfinder Fighter and added in a few other goodies, the biggest being a new system I've made called Talents. It acts like a fusion of Martial Maneuvers and Psionics, and gives them a bit of an edge they didn't have before.

Druids: I am changing wildshape. Oh lord, I am so done with Wildshape.

Paladins: They will become a class around COnstitution and Charisma. I think you're right. I will give them an ability to undo their lack of Strength now, and spellcasting will become dependant on Charisma and Con as well.

Monks: I like your ideas a lot. I shall attempt to implement them.

[Swooper]

Druids: I am changing wildshape. Oh lord, I am so done with Wildshape.
Player's Handbook 2 has done that for you. Look at the shapeshifting ACF for druids there.

[chaos_redefined]

I'd rather give up Wildshape and keep my animal companion than play the Shapeshift variant from PH2. If you wanna run Shapeshift, give them back natural spell, allow wilding clasps, and make the stat bonuses unnamed.

As stands, it is quite possible to build a druid who can outmelee a shapeshift'd druid with just spells.

Pathfinder offers a good wildshape replacement that I'm more than happy to use.

[alchemyprime]

I'd rather give up Wildshape and keep my animal companion than play the Shapeshift variant from PH2. If you wanna run Shapeshift, give them back natural spell, allow wilding clasps, and make the stat bonuses unnamed.

As stands, it is quite possible to build a druid who can outmelee a shapeshift'd druid with just spells.

Pathfinder offers a good wildshape replacement that I'm more than happy to use.

I will admit, I was going to draw both on Pathfinder and the Sztanzy variants to try to make something new.

A pathfinder-esque wildshape

That changes depending on your type of druid.

Also, gives us a way to make some doo-dads make sense. Like an underdark druid wouldn't become a bear, they'd become a giant lizard or vermin or something.