Gish characters and MADness

[Easy_Lee]

With the release of the Hexblade in UA, many pointed out that it was the first SAD gish (unless we count moon druids or shillelagh shenanigans). Whereas a valor bard, former blade lock, eldritch knight, arcane trickster, ranger, paladin, bladesinger, four elements monk, etc. all had separate melee attack and spellcasting attributes, the Hexblade needed only charisma. This gives hexblades an edge over other Gish characters. They can max out their attack power and spellcasting at the same time, and can also select more feats or discretionary ASI's later on.

This makes me wonder: should gish characters be MAD?

The bladesinger is the best comparison example. If bladesingers should be MAD for balance reasons, that implies that a bladesinger who could use Intelligence for weapon attacks would be overpowered compared to an abjuration, evocation, conjuration, etc. wizard.

On the other hand, if using casting stat for weapon attacks is balanced, that implies that the bladesinger is underpowered, and that other gish types are weaker than they ought to be.

What are your thoughts? Should being a gish require MADness, and why? Or should all Gish types be like the Hexblade? And if WotC released the Hexblade as is in Xanathar's, would it change your opinion?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not fond of MADness as a balancing factor-- it tends to inhibit concepts more than anything else. The cost of gishing is best assessed, methinks, in the increased vulnerability to damage that comes from being on the frontlines, and most of all in lost opportunities elsewhere. A Bladesinger isn't a Diviner, for instance; they're dedicating spells to things like Shield instead of Grease, and spending concentration on things like Enlarge/Reduce instead of Web; they're spending ASIs on War Magic instead of Spell Sniper or casting stat boosts. And they don't have the sorts of boosts that come from fighting styles, rage, martial arts, hunter abilities, smites, and all the other things that conventional martial classes get-- they have to (or at least should have to) spend spells to keep up.

[smcmike]

Balance may not require MADness, but my image of a gish does. An awesome magic-user/fighter needs to be good at fighting. Fighting is something you do with your body. If you are relying entirely on your mind and have a weak, flabby, slow body, you are a mage, not a gish.

[Rogerdodger557]

I'm not fond of MADness as a balancing factor-- it tends to inhibit concepts more than anything else. The cost of gishing is best assessed, methinks, in the increased vulnerability to damage that comes from being on the frontlines, and most of all in lost opportunities elsewhere. A Bladesinger isn't a Diviner, for instance; they're dedicating spells to things like Shield instead of Grease, and spending concentration on things like Enlarge/Reduce instead of Web; they're spending ASIs on War Magic instead of Spell Sniper or casting stat boosts. And they don't have the sorts of boosts that come from fighting styles, rage, martial arts, hunter abilities, smites, and all the other things that conventional martial classes get-- they have to (or at least should have to) spend spells to keep up.

This is why I went with a STR-based Eldritch Knight for my gish. There are the belts of x giant strength that make it so you aren't required to spend ASIs on STR, and can pump INT/get feats.

[Sir cryosin]

I like nature domain cleric you just need 15 Str for plate then con is your second Stat. Then you focus on wisdom pick sheleighle. At 8th level you get the extra d8 of any type fire, cold, lightning, etc, etc. You get spiritual weapon. Your a full caster and get some cool spells.

[Paeleus]

I am currently under the impression that they allowed the SADness of the Hexblade due to the class' spellcasting constraints. Casting Hex eats up one slot (and your concentration) which leaves just one slot for Shield/Misty Step/AoA/Eldritch Smite/whatever else, forcing the Hexblade to focus on melee or EB. But you're a magical beating stick, that's what you signed up for. My point: the SADness allows room for feats and secondary (Dex or Con) ASIs.

Of note: I find it both genius and infuriating that Hex Warrior doesn't allow Cha to be used on Two Handed weapons. The highest possible die to use with Cha is a d10 and that takes away your ability to use a shield.

I am of the current opinion that the invocation taxes and weapon limitations of the Hexblade would need to be mirrored in some way on another class chassis to make a SAD Gish acceptable.

[Ravinsild]

Reminds me of the WoW Hybrid tax, which is a shame. I think casting well and fighting well should be balanced by how much you can do it rather than how strong it is. Maybe you only get 2 really big spells a day where as a full caster gets 5 or something, and maybe you hit really hard like a GWM Fighter but you don't get Extra Attack or something? Somehow I feel like "You can heal and DPS" or "Cast and melee" shouldn't "Therefore you can't do either as good as a purist" but rather limit the resources of how often it can be done before falling back to basic abilities.

[Easy_Lee]

Reminds me of the WoW Hybrid tax, which is a shame. I think casting well and fighting well should be balanced by how much you can do it rather than how strong it is. Maybe you only get 2 really big spells a day where as a full caster gets 5 or something, and maybe you hit really hard like a GWM Fighter but you don't get Extra Attack or something? Somehow I feel like "You can heal and DPS" or "Cast and melee" shouldn't "Therefore you can't do either as good as a purist" but rather limit the resources of how often it can be done before falling back to basic abilities.

The gish types already have that tax. The only pures we have are fighter, barbarian, rogue, and arguably monk. The first three beat hybrid at-will DPR, and have additional built-in survival features. Monks give up some DPR at later levels in exchange for unparalleled mobility and stuns. Being able to just decide to run up a wall and force four saving throws on a flyer, at any time, is big.

Notably, the elements monks spells compete directly with stunning strike for the same ki resource. More spells means fewer stuns. I get what wizards was going for here, though as I've noted before, I have issues with their implementation.

Rangers and paladins can match pure DPR under certain circumstances, but they run out of spell slots. Paladins are really good for their lay on hands and aura, something Rangers don't have a good answer to, but that's another debate.

Bladesingers, Valor Bards, elemental monks, bladesingers, and every kind of warlock fall behind on DPR most of the time in my experience. I'm a bit concerned about the UA invocation that lets Hexblades smite, as that could get out of hand with their short rest slots (especially if they multiclass paladin!), but that's another story.

But what I noticed is that hybrids will still fall behind on DPR whether they're MAD or not. So the question left is: is MADness a balance concern for some other reason? That's why I suggested comparing bladesingers to other wizards.

[qube]

Eldritch knight works pretty good without high INT. Shield, haste, fly, etc ... keep your head on the no-save/attack roll spells, and you'll be fine.

[Easy_Lee]

Eldritch knight works pretty good without high INT. Shield, haste, fly, etc ... keep your head on the no-save/attack roll spells, and you'll be fine.

Well yeah, but you can also build a blade lock around spells that don't require spell attack rolls or saves (Hex, hellish rebuke, Blink, etc.). You can do this with paladins and Rangers too. But that limits your spell selection.

[Willie the Duck]

I am currently under the impression that they allowed the SADness of the Hexblade due to the class' spellcasting constraints.

I strongly suspect this is the case. Just looking at Shillelagh, the nature cleric, hill dwarves, and tome warlocks, it was easy to impute a set of rules that precluded having multiple attacks, a reasonable AC, and a replacement combat stat (in the stat you would want to use) without serious dips and/or requiring a very high dex or strength (in which case, what's the point?). The hexblade seems to break this rule only because the bladepact warlock had previously been so derided as needing a level in fighter (or equivalent) just to function.

That's my suspicion on the 'why the designers...' questions. As to what I think on the matter... In theory I am fine with it. Purity and grand theory of balance and systematic rules have no place in the game. Still, if they are trying to avoid the 3e era of system mastery and 'broken' builds, I would worry about this. In the world of UA, where there is a built in preamble sorta like, 'if you combine this with other outside factors and it blows up in your face, it's on you.' I hesitate what to think of what will happen when they release a full official hexblade, and people get to combine it with the rest of the charisma-centric classes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, I'm strongly in favor of ditching ability scores from 5e altogether; it feels like they preclude more than they enable.

[GlenSmash!]

A while back I got really bothered by the fact that It took a lot of investment to make a character that was great with both a Longbow and an Longsword. Despite that being a pretty good archetype in my mind, it just didn't seem that well supported. Eventually I stuck on a plan. What if my character had 14 Strength and 14 Dex and just left them there and focused on feats to improve Combat ability. How gimped would he actually be?

Since then I've made quite a few characters along the same principle. You could say I embraced the MADness. I might be a little bit less effective, but I'm having a lot of fun. If it works on My Barb/Ranger I can see MADness working fine on Gishes.

[Kryx]

I would go the opposite track: I think SAD characters are the problem. Encouraging SADness is poor design imo. SADness being so common is a flaw of the current balance in the ability scores where str, int, and/or cha can be dumped quite easily by many classes.
3.X had less problems with that imbalance due to int = skill points, but it wasn't perfect either.

Hexblade is a patch to the bladelock and it's implementation is an abomination imo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would go the opposite track: I think SAD characters are the problem. Encouraging SADness is poor design imo. SADness being so common is a flaw of the current balance in the ability scores where str, int, and/or cha can be dumped quite easily by many classes.
3.X had less problems with that imbalance due to int = skill points, but it wasn't perfect either.
3.5 had less problems with ability scores because it had more ways to mitigate low scores, ranging from magic items to "level-based modifiers become more important."


Hexblade is a patch to the bladelock and it's implementation is an abomination imo.
It's definitely a patch, but how is it "an abomination?"

[Kryx]

It's definitely a patch, but how is it "an abomination?"
It's a patch that invalidates a whole pact. "Your patron is a sword", really? "Oh, and now if you want to be a melee warlock you can't have any flavorful patrons, it's just a smart sword - congrats"! I guess all the unique patrons only work for Tome as Chain has its own patch in Raven Queen as well.
Also one of the main themes of this whole thread: using a mental ability score to melee was a thing in 4e. By 5e's design it doesn't belong. If it existed in many places then one could make an argument, but as the only source (I believe) of it in 5e? No thanks, take your paradigm break back.

Bladelock needs fixing and WotC is limited in their options, but creating subclasses to fix (and effectively nullify) poorly designed features is not a solution that should be accepted by the community imo. It entirely limits the patrons for bladelocks and breaks paradigms that 5e purposefully avoided breaking.

[Easy_Lee]

It's a patch that invalidates a whole pact. "Your patron is a sword", really? "Oh, and now if you want to be a melee warlock you can't have any flavorful patrons, it's just a smart sword - congrats"! I guess all the unique patrons only work for Tome as Chain has its own patch in Raven Queen as well.
Also one of the main themes of this whole thread: using a mental ability score to melee was a thing in 4e. By 5e's design it doesn't belong. If it existed in many places then one could make an argument, but as the only source (I believe) of it in 5e? No thanks, take your paradigm break back.

The paradigm is what I'm talking about. I'm sure we could list several pages worth of instances where the paradigm of INT/WIS/CHA for spell attacks and STR/DEX for weapon attacks is upheld. I'm just not convinced that this paradigm adds to the game where Gish types are concerned. If anyone was going to attack with INT, it would be a spellsinger, just as if anyone was going to attack with WIS, it would be a Cleric...just kidding, it's actually a druid with shillelagh. So I guess you could say that shillelagh already breaks the paradigm even if Hexblade isn't allowed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's a patch that invalidates a whole pact. "Your patron is a sword", really? "Oh, and now if you want to be a melee warlock you can't have any flavorful patrons, it's just a smart sword - congrats"! I guess all the unique patrons only work for Tome as Chain has its own patch in Raven Queen as well.
Also one of the main themes of this whole thread: using a mental ability score to melee was a thing in 4e. By 5e's design it doesn't belong. If it existed in many places then one could make an argument, but as the only source (I believe) of it in 5e? No thanks, take your paradigm break back.

Bladelock needs fixing and WotC is limited in their options, but creating subclasses to fix (and effectively nullify) poorly designed features is not a solution that should be accepted by the community imo. It entirely limits the patrons for bladelocks and breaks paradigms that 5e purposefully avoided breaking.
Creating a new patron maybe isn't the most elegant option, but there's only so much they can do. They can't really say "here's an errata for Blade Pact that totally overhauls it," because that's clunky as all get out. "Here's a pact that's like Blade Pact but better" is kind of rude as well, and will probably get called out as (deliberate) power creep. A new patron is a decent compromise, and-- unlike pacts-- they're substantial enough chunks of mechanics that you can fit in enough boosts.

That being said, I hadn't really looked at the fluff. It could be better.

[Specter]

Depends on how many roles you want to fill. Taking Battlemaster and EK as an example, EK can be a better defensive fighter, and BM an offensive one. If the EK wants to take the role of debuffer as well with Eldritch Strike, then it's fair to need to spend more in INT too.

As far as full casters go, roles must be doubly considered. If we consider only damage, regular Warlocks should always be ahead of Bladelocks, which is unfair because Bladelocks need to spend more in both feats and ASIs.

[miburo]

In general I like MADness because it forces player's to make choices and offers more variability in builds. SADness is boring. Most wizards are built the same (high int, medium dex and con). Most monks are built the same (high dex, medium wis, medium con). Rogues can have some variability depending on the archetype (Int for ATs, Cha for Swashbucklers). But building a Paladin, Eldritch Knight, etc. has more challenges and can be built different ways depending on what spells and abilities you want to emphasize.

For Hexblades...I do think the Cha thing is a patch, but a necessary one. It would be nicer if Blade Pact just got the Cha to attack roll and damage as part of the pact itself which makes it easier to play different patrons. I don't see WotC doing revised pacts though. Most likely we will see a revised Hexblade in Xenathar's Guide (I hope we do)...

[rbstr]

In general I like MADness because it forces player's to make choices and offers more variability in builds.

I like it too in that way. IMO every class/archetype should shake out to have two main (non-Con) attributes and they should both be approximately as valuable.
I think a problem is that the system doesn't really enable a Wis-high Monk or Cha-high paladin like I feel it should. Or, like, a str-based champion fighter should get something a bit more from dex. A assassin rouge should get more from something.

[Easy_Lee]

I like it too in that way. IMO every class/archetype should shake out to have two main (non-Con) attributes and they should both be approximately as valuable.
I think a problem is that the system doesn't really enable a Wis-high Monk or Cha-high paladin like I feel it should. Or, like, a str-based champion fighter should get something a bit more from dex. A assassin rouge should get more from something.

Trouble is that if multiple attributes are important, then almost no one who isn't a variant human will pick up more than one feat. And for a given class, it's almost always going to be the same crucial feat. That limits player choice, especially on classes that have less variability to them. Right now, there's little variety among open hand monks because they all take mobile or observant, then focus on their stats. Every class would look like that.

While you can play a character with sixteens in his base stat that never goes higher, who wants to do that? Not very many players. And frankly, it's terrible design to expect people to use the system in a way you know most of them won't. A good game company doesn't complain when their players don't play the way the company wants them to; they take another look at design.

[Zalabim]

I'll just repeat my previous commentary. Hexblade and Raven Queen patrons are loaded with the features that a lot of people begged for on bladelocks or assumed they could have with a familiar. Just give them medium armor, cha for their attacks, hex as not a spell, use familiar senses without taking an action, and have guaranteed advantage in combat from help. Is there anything that was ever asked for that wasn't in the UA? It's not a fixed version; it's a dream version. I hope they serve to illustrate where those ideas don't work. Hexblade isn't just a fix for bladelocks. It's amazing for any kind of warlock, but it also makes pact of the blade and eldritch blast more similar than ever. There's really a big difference between a character whose first instinct is to hit something with a stick and a character who, if cornered, can still hit things with a stick. Bladelock is the former and Hexblade is the latter.

Fiend bladelocks are no less viable than before. With just the +3 weapon invocation, a dex bladelock would be more DPR than EB without Hex, and a Str Bladelock more DPR than EB when using Hex too. It seems clear they're experimenting with fixes from multiple angles. Boring but practical would be to add +1 to hit and damage with your pact weapon if it's not a magical weapon already to each of Thirsting blade, Lifedrinker, and one of the new weapon invocations, weapon as focus or eldritch smite.


Trouble is that if multiple attributes are important, then almost no one who isn't a variant human will pick up more than one feat.
This doesn't seem like a problem. It would make feat design a lot easier if you could count on people only taking one or two of them on any given character.

And for a given class, it's almost always going to be the same crucial feat. That limits player choice, especially on classes that have less variability to them. Right now, there's little variety among open hand monks because they all take mobile or observant, then focus on their stats. Every class would look like that.
Feats being required is to be fixed in core class design. The perception that feats are required is just players being dumb, and you can't fix stupid. At least, not all of it.

No, the trouble I'd have with making more stats important is that it muddies the classes' designs. It makes it harder for designers to get across the ideas of how a class is played. "This class is a champion of good who leads from the front, so it uses Str and Cha, (but Int, Wis, and Dex are important too, so figure something out. I don't know anymore.)" Not good.

[Deathtongue]

But what I noticed is that hybrids will still fall behind on DPR whether they're MAD or not. So the question left is: is MADness a balance concern for some other reason? That's why I suggested comparing bladesingers to other wizards.

Here's a more abstract problem with full-caster gishes: over time, they get pushed more and more into a pure caster role.

I think that gishes can keep up on the damage race if they really want to. The problem they generally face is: why WOULD you want to? I mean, you the 13th level bladesinger could use Contingency + Greater Invis in your 6th and 7th-level spell slots to simulate Action Surge. You could also upcast Bigby's to have Paladin-level DPR. ... or you could've instead cast Mass Suggestion and Reverse Gravity. You the Valor Bard could lay down a buttwhuppin' with that Oathbow and Swift Quiver... or you could give it to the Eldritch Knight and get a Staff of Power after some multiclassing instead. Soforth.

For that reason, gishes in 3E and 5E D&D tend to generally be weaker than pure casters. CoDzilla gets all of the attention, but a Blaster Cleric in 3E or Pathfinder can easily blow them out of the water in terms of raw effectiveness.

This paradigm shift really isn't a game-balance problem with SAD gishes that have to advance their primary casting stat to be a good gish, such as the Nature/Arcana Cleric and the Bladesinger. However, more MAD gishes get the shaft. I don't think it's a coincidence that the gishes that fall behind are the MAD Valor Bard and the Bladelock, despite being comparable in raw melee butt-kicking as the Bladesinger/Cleric.

[Willie the Duck]

It's a patch that invalidates a whole pact. "Your patron is a sword", really? "Oh, and now if you want to be a melee warlock you can't have any flavorful patrons, it's just a smart sword - congrats"! I guess all the unique patrons only work for Tome as Chain has its own patch in Raven Queen as well.

Yeah. The only reason I don't strongly agree with this is that I think it's a forgone conclusion-- people who care about flavor are going to be disappointed with the paradigm of making highly mechanically distinct archetypes if those are then tied to distinct flavors (unless they are willing to re-fluff). Core fighter is great--my strong, armored knight, my samurai, or my dashing rapier swordsman can be a champion or battlemaster (or EK if they have a spellcasting bent) with the only difference in the mechanics. Go much farther than that and it gets disappointing ("I want a nature cleric, but why am I supposed to wear heavy armor?" "I want to play a green-dragon-themed sorcerer, so I'll just take... uh oh!").


The paradigm is what I'm talking about. I'm sure we could list several pages worth of instances where the paradigm of INT/WIS/CHA for spell attacks and STR/DEX for weapon attacks is upheld. I'm just not convinced that this paradigm adds to the game where Gish types are concerned. If anyone was going to attack with INT, it would be a spellsinger, just as if anyone was going to attack with WIS, it would be a Cleric...just kidding, it's actually a druid with shillelagh. So I guess you could say that shillelagh already breaks the paradigm even if Hexblade isn't allowed.

The Cleric/Druid paradigm (in isolation) works in my mind. Clerics cast sacred flame (why? Not sure. I think it must be a 4e thing). Druids use shillelagh. My issue with shillelagh is the paradigm of classes (tomelock, bard, nature cleric) borrowing other classes spells (and using their native casting stat). That leads to the design issue of having to plan around which classes should be able to access it, and if they have multiple attacks and decent AC. Note that we don't have any paladin archetypes with borrow-a-spell features (and I guess how they are cha based, and not wisdom), perhaps because a SAD paladin would really throw off balance. Shillelagh, like find familiar, is a class feature disguised as a spell, and its inter-usability is a design monkey-wrench that the designers brought upon themselves.

[rbstr]

Yeah, vanilla rules only, Shillelagh is pretty much only good on a Druid before level 5 and a divine-strike (Nature) Cleric. I think it works out fine in those cases, they don't have extra attack ect (Frankly, it's a trap choice on Druid). Sure a Wis class can get it with Magic Initiate or a 1-level dip and there's Bard/Tomelock features. But, even then, its not as useful as other things most of the time since those need Dex for AC and have better weapon proficiency.

Anyway I think most classes should be two-attribute dependent. With one being a more secondary attribute.
My fix for Hexblade is pretty simple: Add heavy armor prof to it and take away Cha-to hit.
Now they need a physical stat like all the others. (But they can use Strength, which valor/bladesingers don't do very well)
Maybe also make the curse Cha-mod per day and have it be a 1-minute self-buff. That makes cha important to the melee aspect from the get-go rather than 12levels down the line but also not so incredibly important that it has to be 20 if you mostly want to melee. Blast-lock as a hexblade is also still enabled.

My fix for the blade pact on the other patrons would be to have the level3 pact choice give you a fighting style and upgraded Armor of Shadows blade-only invocation too allow Cha to AC or that functions like heavy armor.

[Kryx]

My fix for the blade pact on the other patrons would be to have the level3 pact choice give you a fighting style and upgraded Armor of Shadows blade-only invocation too allow Cha to AC or that functions like heavy armor.
Heavy armor is a bit too much imo. Medium is what other gishes get. Offering that or armor of shadows is enough imo.

[Willie the Duck]

Heavy armor is a bit too much imo. Medium is what other gishes get. Offering that or armor of shadows is enough imo.

Heavy armor, but having to have strength or dexterity as a combat stat (thus keeping them MAD) is a bridge to far? Weren't you the one that were calling SAD classes bad design?

[rbstr]

Heavy armor is a bit too much imo. Medium is what other gishes get. Offering that or armor of shadows is enough imo.

Ehh, medium is what Valor Bards get. But they also get a shield. Bladesingers are in light but they get a pretty great AC buff.
Simple Blade Pact warlocks are stuck in light armor or mage armor.
I'm not giving the vanilla bladepact a shield in this case just a bit of an AC buff that makes them Dex-agnostic. And it's still an invocation. They'll have a niche in a wider weapon selection that seems like a not-too-powerful way to give that pact small buff.

With the Hexblade patron I think heavy armor is completely fine, it comes with a build-in bit of MAD for +1 AC. That is, you need 14 dex for medium or 15 str for heavy with +1AC and stealth disadvantage. That seems fine to me.

[Gorgo]

IMO, the fact that 5e makes you choose between an ASI or a feat makes it much harder to figure out how much SAD vs MAD affects character ability. It's pretty easy to say "ok, the gish will typically have 1-2 lower hit/damage/save DC than the focused character". It's a lot harder to compare things when the focused character is picking up powerful feats like GWM and the gish can't afford them.

[Rogerdodger557]

IMO, the fact that 5e makes you choose between an ASI or a feat makes it much harder to figure out how much SAD vs MAD affects character ability. It's pretty easy to say "ok, the gish will typically have 1-2 lower hit/damage/save DC than the focused character". It's a lot harder to compare things when the focused character is picking up powerful feats like GWM and the gish can't afford them.

This is why STR based EKs are great. There are more Items in the DMG for increasing STR than any other stat, and the belts get you over 20 STR. I started with 16 in STR and INT, took a couple feats(War Caster + Crossbow Expert), and then I pumped my INT to 18(I had +1 weapons), and by the time I got my next ASI, I had gotten a belt of Hill Giant Strength. I just maxed my INT, and never worried about pumping my STR after that. The magic Items pretty much negate the need for MAD depending on your build.

[strangebloke]

IMO, the fact that 5e makes you choose between an ASI or a feat makes it much harder to figure out how much SAD vs MAD affects character ability. It's pretty easy to say "ok, the gish will typically have 1-2 lower hit/damage/save DC than the focused character". It's a lot harder to compare things when the focused character is picking up powerful feats like GWM and the gish can't afford them.

This is also a function of melee characters having much better feats overall.

[jas61292]

Personally I agree with those who say that having more classes be MAD would be a good thing. I think it would promote more variety. While the class had some major flaws, in concept, I think the Berserker Barbarian is actually a fantastic example of how classes should have been made in this regard. Barbarians may ruin mostly off strength and constitution, the Berserker's 10th level feature runs off Charisma. Now, unfortunately, it is a weak feature, but the idea is very solid. If every class or subclass had a single feature, one that is useful but not central to their identity, that ran off of a secondary, non-Con ability score, you would encourage investment in another ability, while at the same time not making that ability score so important as to gimp the character if the do not invest.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure how MADness is going to make characters more varied. Quite the contrary. Point buy or standard array generally gives you three above-average scores. You'll put one in your main stat, one in Con, and one... well. If your class is MAD-- say, a Monk, or most gish-- you'll put it in whatever secondary stat is required without even thinking about it.

I mean, say I'm making a human Monk. I'll put a 15 in Dex, a 15 in Wis, a 14 in Con, to have the scores I need to do my job, and then... well, I can pick one score not to stink at. By contrast, if I'm taking a human Rogue, I'll put a 15 in Dex, a 14 or 15 in Con, and that's it, job done. I still have plenty of points to spread around-- I can put a good score in Cha and be a socialite, I can put a good score in Str and be a grappler or athlete, I can invest in Int and be a scholar... choice, choices, choices.

----

That problem, by the way, is why I advocate for ditching Abilities. They do little but limit character concepts, because you only have so many points to invest, and that investment determines so much of your ultimate capabilities.

[jas61292]

I'm not sure how MADness is going to make characters more varied. Quite the contrary. Point buy or standard array generally gives you three above-average scores. You'll put one in your main stat, one in Con, and one... well. If your class is MAD-- say, a Monk, or most gish-- you'll put it in whatever secondary stat is required without even thinking about it.

I mean, say I'm making a human Monk. I'll put a 15 in Dex, a 15 in Wis, a 14 in Con, to have the scores I need to do my job, and then... well, I can pick one score not to stink at. By contrast, if I'm taking a human Rogue, I'll put a 15 in Dex, a 14 or 15 in Con, and that's it, job done. I still have plenty of points to spread around-- I can put a good score in Cha and be a socialite, I can put a good score in Str and be a grappler or athlete, I can invest in Int and be a scholar... choice, choices, choices.

----

That problem, by the way, is why I advocate for ditching Abilities. They do little but limit character concepts, because you only have so many points to invest, and that investment determines so much of your ultimate capabilities.

Well, my example of how I think classes should be is mostly assuming the base class is otherwise MAD. Having the monk be primary Dex secondary Wis or vice versa would be fine. Its issue is that right now both are essentialy primary. Meanwhile most casters have a primary and no secondary. Shifting some of the importance of Wis on a monk to Dex, while simultaneously making sure guys like wizards and Fighters have something running off a secondary non-Con stat would make for far more interesting classes.

As for the point on variety, I think it would increase it by giving more classes reasons to actually use the classic dump stats, while at the same time not making them responsible for anything so crucial as to make it terrible to dump anyways.

[Gorgo]

This is also a function of melee characters having much better feats overall.

True, though IMO melee characters need strong feats as a way of differentiating themselves from each other. Spellcasters with different spells known are effectively different classes, but fighter-types really need something that makes them not all the same.

[smcmike]

I think the idea is to create subclass abilities or options that create synergy with abilities that the class is not actually dependent upon. That's what Intimidating Presence does. Other examples: Rally, for the Battlemaster Fighter, Int for EK or AT (which is technically droppable, but useful), or any ability that gives boosts to skills outside of the class's core competency, such as Aspect of the Wolf or Blessings of Knowledge.

Monk is funny, because it is heavily dependent on two stats and constitution, but allows you to drop the other three stats hard, if you like. There are zero synergies to be had with monk and charisma or intelligence, and the only possible use for strength is an odd grappler build or something.

In comparison, a Barbarian is dependent on strength, likes constitution even more than the average character, gets significant benefits from a high dexterity, likes a high wisdom for skills and saves, and even has a minor ability that runs off charisma. The only stat with no clear benefit is intelligence.

[Deathtongue]

Having more MADness for gishes wouldn't help the underlying balance problem that gishes are generically inferior to pure casters mid and late-game. If anything, it'd make it worse. Pathfinder took specific steps to nerf CoDzilla and the non-melee cleric and druid and oracle and summoner still run roughshod over that game.

Here's what I mean: for example, a Hexblade Warlock that equips shields and medium armor, keeps a hand free, and then proceeds to completely ignore anything other than Eldritch Blast is not only more effective offensive-wise, but probably also defense-wise because they can pump CON and WIS in a way traditional melee Hexblades can't.

[Deathtongue]

I'd go as far as to take the opposite track. Because blasting is a better use of mid/high-level spell slots than trying to keep up with the damage race, pure casters should be MAD and gishes should be SAD.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I kind of like them being MAD, but I wish they got power that warranted doing it. To me, a rewarding gish would feel noticeably more powerful than their martial brethren IF they got a chance to cap all of their requisite stats and grab similar feats, but are on about the same level when they have to make compromises. I also really wish there was a good gish feat that capitalized on their unique capabilities.

Part of the problem is poor spell support, too. Outside of SCAG, there's not much love for it, and even that's just cantrips that allow them to be barely functional at all (and are intentionally unsynergistic with Extra Attack, benefitting single attackers and things like quickening Sorcadins almost exclusively). An expanded roster of levels 1-5 arcane spells that are built for melee could help, as would some interesting mechanic to differentiate them from the pack. Look at the paladin's spell list and smite: they benefit each other and define their role, which are both coincidentally exactly what people want from a gish.

I had a work here years ago for a gish class, but I didn't go far enough in the second regard. I've had some revisions since that have gotten closer to what I want, but until I spend the time to make an expanded roster of spells, the work's admittedly incomplete.

[Kryx]

I'm not giving the vanilla bladepact a shield in this case just a bit of an AC buff that makes them Dex-agnostic. And it's still an invocation. They'll have a niche in a wider weapon selection that seems like a not-too-powerful way to give that pact small buff.
Medium armor on pact of the blade and heavy as an invocation would be totally fine imo.

[Easy_Lee]

Going off a recent enworld poll, people are most satisfied with the Paladin and Wizard classes. MADness vs SADness may or may not have anything to do with that, but since wizards are typically SAD and paladins always MAD, it's worth noting. I don't think the average player is too worried about how many attributes a class depends upon.

What I will say is that if this is a balance concern, then gish types are imbalanced in any campaign where they have access to attribute items, such as belt of strength.

[Deathtongue]

Going off a recent enworld poll, people are most satisfied with the Paladin and Wizard classes. MADness vs SADness may or may not have anything to do with that, but since wizards are typically SAD and paladins always MAD, it's worth noting. I don't think the average player is too worried about how many attributes a class depends upon.

What I will say is that if this is a balance concern, then gish types are imbalanced in any campaign where they have access to attribute items, such as belt of strength.Do you have a link to this poll? My gut feeling is that peoples' satisfaction with classes directly correlates to how many 'options' a class in gestalt has compared to other classes taking their broad role (i.e. tank, blaster, controller, healer, etc.).

[Easy_Lee]

Do you have a link to this poll? My gut feeling is that peoples' satisfaction with classes directly correlates to how many 'options' a class in gestalt has compared to other classes taking their broad role (i.e. tank, blaster, controller, healer, etc.).

enworld poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results)

Rogue was the next most popular, though the class is fairly set in the role of scout / DPR (unless you multiclass).

That said, you may be on to something with options. The rogue features provide a large amount of player choice. In particular, expertise, overall SADness, and the bonus feat allow rogues extra opportunities to differentiate.

Paladins and wizards, meanwhile, have unusually high numbers of archetypes in the PHB. And wizards of course have their unparalleled spell selection.

My interpretation: players enjoy making meaningful choices.

[CaptainSarathai]

[QUOTE=Easy_Lee;22315142 So the question left is: is MADness a balance concern for some other reason? That's why I suggested comparing bladesingers to other wizards.[/QUOTE]

In short: yes.
There are two kinds of Gish; there are the "self buff" Gish characters, and then there are those who actually alternate between weapon and magical attacks.
The Self Buff builds are like the Eldritch Knight who doesn't boost up his Int, and casts spells that don't use Intelligence as a factor. They can get away with being SAD, by just ignoring the secondary stat.
The other characters are like the original BladeLock, Bladesinger, Valor Bard - their spell list actually lends itself to using the statted spells, and thus we perceive them as being MAD because we want to get the most out of both sides of their "gishiness."

So in a sense, MAD is meant to counterbalance their flexibility, and yes, it is a sort of Hybrid Tax.
The other thing that it balances out, are the Multiclass options. You can MC a Fighter and a Wizard together and get a "kinda" Bladesinger. Or you can just play the Bladesinger. The MADness is meant to keep you from taking that Bladesinger and then MCing it with say, Rogue, too easily.

The issue that I take with the Hexblade is that it was a lazy patch. The goal was to take the things that people were already MCing into with the Blade Pact in order to get a playable character. You can really build a Hexblade by just mixing a Warlock and Paladin. Making it SAD on top of that just means that you can break the Hexblade wide open by MCing it into other things. I houserule at my table that you can't MC the Hexblade, because it's like buying one class, and getting another half-off.

[Sindeloke]

Hm. What would be the effect if all melee attacks keyed off strength and all ranged attacks keyed off dexterity?

Just spitballing, but my instinct is that gishes become less MAD, because they can select spells that require attack rolls for reliability, or spells that require saves for diversity. Dedicated casters can make the same choice, giving a reason for wizards to invest in strength or druids in dexterity, or stay SAD with a more limited toolkit. Seems like it would be much less punishing than the same mechanic was in 3.path, due to the equalizing of proficiency bonuses.

Only works if 60% of the best spells for any given class aren't all the same type, though. I suspect you'd benefit a great deal more from choosing only saving throw spells on any of the primary casters, which changes nothing except making a bunch of perfectly good spells obsolete.

[Easy_Lee]

Has anyone played in a game with a bladelock, bladesinger, valor bard, etc. that had a belt of strength, headband of intellect, or whatever? And if so, did that character seem overpowered compared to the others?

[Rogerdodger557]

The Self Buff builds are like the Eldritch Knight who doesn't boost up his Int, and casts spells that don't use Intelligence as a factor. They can get away with being SAD, by just ignoring the secondary stat.


As an Eldritch Knight with an INT of 20, I counterpoint. The lvl 10 ability is directly tied to an EKs INT, as it gives disadvantage on saving throws. Lightning Lure requires a saving throw, and probably one of the best cantrips an EK can have. Admittedly, I do use my spell slots mainly for buffs(Haste), but I also have several attack spells to use if I need to, and I will use them if I need to do anything that I physically cannot do.

[Unoriginal]

The question is, what do you consider a Gish?

1. Do you need to be as good at fighting and at casting than full casters/martials?

2. Do you need to be less good at both but able to use the two?

3. Do you need to be less good at one but be able to compensate by using the other?

4. Do you need to be less good at one but be able to excel in the other by buffing it with the one you are less proficient is?

In case 1., a Gish would be crazy OP, having the best of both worlds and none of the troubles.

In case 2., a Gish would be balanced, but would most likely be MAD and have a "jack of all trades, master of none" feel. It's more or less what you get from a multiclass

In case 3., a Gish would feel like someone who dabbled a bit in one specialty at the cost of training the other side. They generally are more SAD, because the dabbling is not what they have to focus on, but still gain for being good at other stats. An EK would have troubles against the other Fighter subclasses if they fought in an anti-magic field, but outside of that magic allows them to compete.

In case 4., the Gish is likely SAD, but has to spend ressources to really match full casters or martials.

[Saiga]

With 5E's balance, it shouldn't be too hard - martials have better "at-will" power, casters have flashier/more versatile effects they can use a certain number of times per day.

A gish would be seen as either sacrificing at will power/longevity for more flash, or sacrificing flash for better at will abilities.

I think the Paladin is a good example, not sure about the EK and AT in practice but they seem to work along this principle - the other subclasses add passive or short rest resources while the EK and AT get a handful of spell slots with a larger variety of what can be done with them.

The Warlock already made that sacrifice, gaining EB as its at will power - which is why I'm baffled that it's so hard to give Bladelocks the support to be on par with Agonizing Blast.

[Klorox]

I like nature domain cleric you just need 15 Str for plate then con is your second Stat. Then you focus on wisdom pick sheleighle. At 8th level you get the extra d8 of any type fire, cold, lightning, etc, etc. You get spiritual weapon. Your a full caster and get some cool spells.

Or be a dwarf. They don't get slowed down in armor. :smallamused:


My personal favorite is a vhuman arcana cleric with the magic initiate feat for shillelagh.

[Willie the Duck]

Or be a dwarf. They don't get slowed down in armor. :smallamused:


My personal favorite is a vhuman arcana cleric with the magic initiate feat for shillelagh.

Yes, that is an entertaining rabbit hole to fall down.

[Rogerdodger557]

My personal favorite is a vhuman arcana cleric with the magic initiate feat for shillelagh.

I'm playing one of these in a AL for Curse of Strahd modules. So much cheese.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm playing one of these in a AL for Curse of Strahd modules. So much cheese.
...You're using a subclass and a feat to do what, 2d8+10 at 8th level, with a potential rider? That's basically just Extra Attack. Maybe Extra Attack with a low-level class specific boost (Green Flame Blade would make it kind of like Horde Breaker, for instance). That's not cheese, mate. That's spending resources to achieve basic competence.

[Willie the Duck]

Oh for goodness sakes, again? I swear, every other thread or so...

We've been down this road so many times. Let's just skip to the chase, okay? The vhuman arcana cleric rabbit hole is neither cheese nor a trap, specifically, but just a massive build-sink that ends up being about roughly equal to what you would have if you hadn't bothered.

The concept is fine, get a rolled stat character with at least 13, 18, 18 or 14, 17, 18 and picked Variant human. With the two +1s for Vuman, a +1 Con from resilient: Con, (which you will want), and a single ASI will get you end stats of 14 Dex, 20 Con, and 20 Wisdom. At first level as an arcana cleric, pick a (or 2) SCAG combat cantrips. For you Vuman feat, take Magic Initiate (druid) and get shillelagh (and possibly thorn whip) as cantrips. For the rest of your ASIs/feats, take that one ASI and resilient:con I mentioned, along with War Caster (thus maxing your concentration saves), Polearm Master (to use SCAG cantrips as OAs and increase the OAs you get), and maybe even Sentinel (so, all 6 feats you would get). You've now use wisdom as your combat stat, add your wisdom to both your attack damage (because you are arcana cleric level 8+, and all your attacks are SCAG cantrips) and the secondary cantrip effects, and can do funky things like thorn whip someone into your spirits guardians radius (which has a relatively decent chance of staying up because you are saving twice at 5+prof, although deliberately getting into melee with a concentration spell up is still reckless), and then either keep them there with sentinel, or dare them to leave with booming blade.

Here's the thing, congratulations, you've gotten one little neat trick to turn your single-attack character class from a melee also-ran to a semi-serious contender. Of course it only really gets going at level 12 or 16 or so (right when a cleric should have so many spells that they don't really need to be good at melee), and you've sunk your entire character build into the concept.

So it's not bad, it's just not amazing, given how much investment you've put into it. So that's why people roll their eyes when it gets called cheese.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So that's why people roll their eyes when it gets called cheese.
Maybe it's just my 3.5 background, but I've seen basically nothing in 5e I'd call cheese. Wish/Simulacrum looping, obviously. Goodberry+Life Cleric, maybe. The other day someone pointed out that you could arguably do an Artificer 4/Wizard (Artificer) 16 build and pass out high-level and/or Concentration wizard spells via Infuse Magic. That's about it, I think; everything else just falls under "okay, you've found synergy, congratulations."

[ZorroGames]

Trouble is that if multiple attributes are important, then almost no one who isn't a variant human will pick up more than one feat. And for a given class, it's almost always going to be the same crucial feat. That limits player choice, especially on classes that have less variability to them. Right now, there's little variety among open hand monks because they all take mobile or observant, then focus on their stats. Every class would look like that.

While you can play a character with sixteens in his base stat that never goes higher, who wants to do that? Not very many players. And frankly, it's terrible design to expect people to use the system in a way you know most of them won't. A good game company doesn't complain when their players don't play the way the company wants them to; they take another look at design.

No, I don't think is one feat serves all of a class. I do not at this point plan to pick a feat for my Monk. It would not fit my charactercdesign at all.

Actually if I went "Feat heavy" just for flavor I think I would enjoy staying at 16. Maybe I will work on that.

Maybe instead of criticizing endlessly you should design/write/publish a game that comes to dominate the market. Expect a lot of criticism from people.

[Easy_Lee]

No, I don't think is one feat serves all of a class. I do not at this point plan to pick a feat for my Monk. It would not fit my charactercdesign at all.

Actually if I went "Feat heavy" just for flavor I think I would enjoy staying at 16. Maybe I will work on that.

Maybe instead of criticizing endlessly you should design/write/publish a game that comes to dominate the market. Expect a lot of criticism from people.

Nothing improves without critique and discussion. Unless you think D&D is perfect, there's no need to be upset when people discuss things they think would make it better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Nothing improves without critique and discussion. Unless you think D&D is perfect, there's no need to be upset when people discuss things they think would make it better.
Hey now, this is the Giantitp 5e board. We never get upset when people propose changes to the game.

[Ravinsild]

Since I've clearly been talking about it lately...what exactly is a Mystic? Some of the Orders and Disciplines seem somewhat melee focused. They don't use spells though. Are they Gish-like? They're clearly very good in almost everyone's opinion, I've seen that much at least.

No one has said, so far, that I've seen "nah m8 it's terrible, pass on that class" so it must be at least competent if not more. Built right could it be a great example of a balanced or even very good gish, or does it count as a Gish at all?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Since I've clearly been talking about it lately...what exactly is a Mystic? Some of the Orders and Disciplines seem somewhat melee focused. They don't use spells though. Are they Gish-like? They're clearly very good in almost everyone's opinion, I've seen that much at least.

No one has said, so far, that I've seen "nah m8 it's terrible, pass on that class" so it must be at least competent if not more. Built right could it be a great example of a balanced or even very good gish, or does it count as a Gish at all?
I played one, from 1-20 (though using the different playtests, ending with the current one). It works very well. The neat thing about them is you can afford to be good at regular 'casting' and don't need to sacrifice much of their utility either. The catch being that they can't be a blaster-caster, a controller, a team buffer, AND a melee fighter all on the same round without spending some serious resources.

It's balanced in that you can do a whole lot, but not all at once with either regularity or without compromise.

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe it's just my 3.5 background, but I've seen basically nothing in 5e I'd call cheese. Wish/Simulacrum looping, obviously. Goodberry+Life Cleric, maybe. The other day someone pointed out that you could arguably do an Artificer 4/Wizard (Artificer) 16 build and pass out high-level and/or Concentration wizard spells via Infuse Magic. That's about it, I think; everything else just falls under "okay, you've found synergy, congratulations."

It depends on one's definition of cheese, I guess, and also what you care about.

Wishes have been a thorn in the side of DMs and the designers since quite early in the game*. The fact that players would find a way to make cost/consequence free wishes is unsurprising. It's the first thing you do to break a game like this. It also means I don't care too much that this edition has an infinite wish loop. It's the first thing you take care of as a DM. I think when we first started 5e and everyone was paging through their new books, I literally said, "and you know, if you go online and find whatever way this edition has to cast wish without consequences, you're just meaning that I'll have to kill off this first character you get to sufficient level and wipe away all your hard work, right?" Infinite wishes are the worse abuse in the game in both senses of the word.
*Between oD&D and 1e, EGG felt the need to make stat boosting over 15 require 10(!) wishes to accomplish. You don't make that rule unless wishes have become a problem

Goodberry and Life Cleric are cheese in the sense that it seems like the designers clearly didn't intend it to work that way and it is just an unforeseen convergence of the wordings of specific qualities. It's genuinely not overpowered (every method one can use to achieve it has significant costs/consequences). At worst, I dislike it because it makes a life cleric 1/druid (x-1) or cleric (x-1)/druid 1 better than a life cleric at doing the life-cleric's schtick (and making them druid-level squishy, so those are really the poor-in-fight healer role). But life cleric/lore bard already does that, without the cheese.

The other "cheese" that comes to my mind in this edition is the one-handed quarterstaff, shield, and PAM (which can be used in the above shillelagh madness, if your DM does not allow SCAG). This one is cheesy in that it doesn't make a lick of sense, and worse, looks like it was perhaps intentionally placed by the designers. It is de-cid-ed-ly not overpowered, but it is just goofy. And incentivizes characters to choose verisimilitude breaking choices for game benefit. So it's like a first person shooter video game where, through weird game mechanic confluence (and maybe designer easter egg), the best weapon to use is the squirt gun.