PDA

View Full Version : Questions On 3.5, Article 2: "MAD DAD, SAD VAD: WTF?"



Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 02:07 PM
One of the most common terms thrown about on this discussion forum is "MAD". What exactly is it, and how does it affect gameplay?

The AD in MAD stands for "Attribute Dependency", referring to a class or build that requires a specific stat or stats to be able to function well. For the purposes of this discussion, "Attribute Dependency" is defined as "having class features or a intended party role that benefits greatly from having a higher attribute." A good example would be a Paladin's Divine Grace, which is directly tied to Charisma.

Part 1: Definitions
MAD
"MAD" is Multiple Attribute Dependency, which refers to a class or build that requires at least three high attributes to fuel its class features. A good example is the Paladin class, whose Charisma fuels his Divine Grace and Lay on Hands, Wisdom fuels his spellcasting, and Strength and Constitution bolster his combat ability. Some will say that the Paladin class is not MAD, because he technically has no class features that are fueled by statistics other than Wisdom and Charisma. This is true, but the Paladin's intended party role--that of melee combatant--does require a high Strength and Constitution.

DAD
"DAD" is Dual Attribute Dependency, which refers to a class or build that requires two high attributes to fuel its class features. Good examples are the Shadowcaster, Favored Soul, and Spirit Shaman classes, whose class features and spellcasting are based off of two statistics (Intelligence and Charisma for the Shadowcaster, Wisdom and Charisma for the Favored Soul and Spirit Shaman classes). While a DAD class can benefit from having more than two high attributes, they are not required for the class to function as intended.

VAD
"VAD" is Variable Attribute Dependency, which refers to a class or build that depends on one or two stats that can vary between builds or intended play styles. A good example is the Rogue class, who can be dexterous, charismatic, or intelligent and fill different intended party roles with each iteration. A VAD class benefits a good deal from having more than one high attribute, since they are therefore able to fill two or even three roles at once.

SAD
"SAD" is Single Attribute Dependency, which refers to a class or build that depends on one single stat in all builds. A good example is the Wizard class, which depends almost entirely on Intelligence. Other attributes--especially Constitution--are useful, but not required for the class to perform.

Part 2: Attribute Dependency And You
The definitions above are graded according to severity, the most severe at the top. Generally, the fewer ability scores you are truly dependent upon, the better off you are, since this allows you to spend your gold in a more focused fashion. Lower numbers of dependencies also allows you to be stronger at a few things, rather than mediocre at many.

Further, lower amounts of dependency allow for "wiggle room" in the case of placing scores or buying points. If you only need to worry about one attribute being high, you can augment a few weaker skills that are not dependent for the purposes of history, background, and flavor. For instance, a charismatic Rogue really only needs Charisma and Charisma-based skills, though he can afford a medium-high Intelligence score as a secondary stat, and as such can also afford a few "extra" skills to focus on, to both broaden his character's repertoire and background. Meanwhile, a MAD character--such as a Monk--is not going to be as able to utilize his statistics in a manner befitting his history and upbringing, since he is already so dependent on so many skills.

Part 3: Why Higher Dependencies Are Difficult To Manage
Having a higher amount of dependencies requires you to spread your (very limited) resources thin when it comes to your statistics. Magic items can help in this regard, but who is better off: the SAD character with a +6 item, or a MAD character with three +2 items? I would say that the SAD character is--since all of their class features run off of that one statistic, all of their class features will benefit from a single +6 item. On the other hand, the MAD character with three +2 items will benefit three sets of class abilities less. By spreading himself thin, the MAD character is unable to compete with the SAD character as well.

This is one of the main reasons that spellcasters are so powerful: they have very little attribute dependency, and can therefore focus on one statistic. Non-spellcasters frequently need a variety of statistics and are therefore less able to compete. There are, of course, other reasons that spellcasters outstrip non-spellcasters, but SAD is a factor in that equation.

Part 4: Compensating For Dependency
There are methods of compensating for attribute dependency. The Serenity feat, for instance, allows a Paladin's Divine Grace and Lay on Hands to be determined with Wisdom instead of Charisma, which lowers the Paladin's dependency somewhat. Unfortunately, these feats are few and far between, which makes compensation sometimes difficult.

The best thing to do in a situation where one cannot compensate is to give up a specific set of class features. Using the Paladin above, dropping Strength as a dependency and playing an archer with Zen Archery and Serenity would drop from MAD to SAD. Compensating levels the playing field somewhat, though not entirely.

Hopefully this will help people understand what MAD is, it's varying forms, and how to compensate.

Indon
2007-09-11, 02:11 PM
The article is accurate in technical details, but I disagree with its' assumption that less power is bad.

Morty
2007-09-11, 02:15 PM
The article is accurate in technical details, but I disagree with its' assumption that less power is bad.

If you care about your character optimization, then less power is bad. If character optimization is irrelevant to you, MAD, VAD or whatever doesn't matter for you anyway. Those terms definitions are purely for optimization purposes, in which case less power=bad.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 02:15 PM
D&D is a heroic game, and the players are supposed to be champions, leaders, and the stuff of legend. It is very difficult for one to be legendary when one is mediocre.

Also, the assumption is not so much that "less power is bad", just that it is harder to utilize.

Mike_G
2007-09-11, 02:16 PM
I kind of agree with Indon. It's not a race.

Some party roles are easier to fill with SAD, like the Wizard, while melle or skillmonkey usually benefit more from several high stats.

A Wizard can go 18 Int and 8 everything else and be effective. A fighter with an 8 Con and Dex will be hurting, and can never get the Trip chain. Same for a Rogue. You can max Dex, but not at the expense of everything.

I think a little more MAD for Wizards would be good thing.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 02:19 PM
I kind of agree with Indon. It's not a race.

Some party roles are easier to fill with SAD, like the Wizard, while melle or skillmonkey usually benefit more from several high stats.

A Wizard can go 18 Int and 8 everything else and be effective. A fighter with an 8 Con and Dex will be hurting, and can never get the Trip chain. Same for a Rogue. You can max Dex, but not at the expense of everything.

I think a little more MAD for Wizards would be good thing.

Again, this article is not about Why MAD Exists, this article is about What MAD Is (And How To Deal With It).

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 02:19 PM
The article is accurate in technical details, but I disagree with its' assumption that less power is bad.

The article isn't just about MAD reducing power. It also reduces customization potential. Two paladins (without access to those feats Fax mentioned) will have much the same stats because they both need the same things to excel. Two rogues can look nothing alike, with one focusing on high-Dex TWF, while the other focusing on skill-monkeying through high INT.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-11, 02:22 PM
I think you forget that three items of +2 are substantially cheaper than one item of +6.

Furthermore, not all classes are equally dependent on the attributes they're supposed to be dependent on. Since a paladin is not a primary spellcaster, and can function quite well without spells that allow saving throws, it doesn't need a particularly high wisdom since beyond, 13 or 14 it doesn't really do anything useful.

Likewise, while a wizard arguably needs Int 19 to be able to cast 9th-level spells at some point (and let's face it, most campaigns don't go up to level 17 anyway), a buffer, diviner, summoner, or other specialization that doesn't rely on spells with saving throws doesn't need a +6 item. I'd be sorely tempted to increase my Con instead.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 02:26 PM
I think you forget that three items of +2 are substantially cheaper than one item of +6.

Furthermore, not all classes are equally dependent on the attributes they're supposed to be dependent on. Since a paladin is not a primary spellcaster, and can function quite well without spells that allow saving throws, it doesn't need a particularly high wisdom since beyond, 13 or 14 it doesn't really do anything useful.

Likewise, while a wizard arguably needs Int 19 to be able to cast 9th-level spells at some point (and let's face it, most campaigns don't go up to level 17 anyway), a buffer, diviner, summoner, or other specialization that doesn't rely on spells with saving throws doesn't need a +6 item. I'd be sorely tempted to increase my Con instead.

Ah but the int gives you extra spell slots, and your 2nd level bonus slots, by time you out-grow them, can be used to cast Wombat's Endurance, giving you the best of both worlds.

Indon
2007-09-11, 02:30 PM
D&D is a heroic game, and the players are supposed to be champions, leaders, and the stuff of legend. It is very difficult for one to be legendary when one is mediocre.


If you would like to argue that D&D is designed so that characters should be powerful, that's all well and good, but that strikes me as a long discussion thread, and so let's not go into that here.



Also, the assumption is not so much that "less power is bad", just that it is harder to utilize.

Look at what you named part 3?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 02:31 PM
Look at what you named part 3?

Why so I did. *alters*

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-11, 02:48 PM
Fax, I think the biggest issue here is that you seem to switch between defining "good" as "well-designed" and "mechanically potent" between and during these articles. Certainly, throwing all of one's eggs into a single proverbial basket makes for powerful characters, but it also makes for precious little variation. As an example, the primary defining characteristic of Wizards is that they're extremely intelligent. The secondary defining characteristic is whogivesacrap.

Conversely, basing class abilities on different abilities is generally good design, at least until taken too far. The Favored Soul is a decent example -- having two casting stats means that there's more of a give-and-take relationship between melee prowess vs. casting; there's an actual choice to be made here. The Favored Soul is still a potent class -- he gets his cake and eats it too, but unlike his brethren, he isn't getting his cake plus everyone else's and consuming all of them.

This can, obviously, be taken too far. The Monk vs. the Swordsage is an apt comparison. Both classes have something to gain from high Wisdom. Monks need Wisdom in order to make up for their lack of armor proficiency, as well as to power Stunning Fist, their "signature move," as it were. His other class features also don't play too well with others -- wearing armor also shuts down Evasion, the speed boost and flurry of blows; as a result, even a multiclassed monk can't make very effective use of armor or weapon proficiencies gained through multiclassing. This means that keeping up any sort of reasonable AC requires solid Dex and Wis. Without much strength, the Monk is left dealing piddly damage in melee, and all things considered, the class isn't very mobile, which means Con is something of a priority. Charisma is a dump stat, and Int is an optional stat, but the other 4 are all somewhat required.

Conversely, a Swordsage applies his Wisdom to AC as a bonus on top of having armor and to damage on top of strike damage, as well as powering the DCs of some strikes. (Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, as well as Setting Sun's Sense Motive checks.) The key difference here is that these are options -- you can choose not to take advantage of these, instead putting your focus elsewhere, not receiving a bonus (or rather, selecting a different bonus) rather than taking a penalty. The same goes for Strength -- you can put a middling score in it and build around the problem, rather than just being stuck in a state of "So I can't hurt anything. Piss." His other class features also tend to work with other classes -- only the AC bonus and Evasion get nixed by wearing heavier armor, and the AC bonus can further be made up for by using a shield.

Basically, from a design perspective, MAD is great when it forces decisions to be made -- what is this Swordsage's particular style and how does he cover his weaknesses, does this Favored Soul want to throw down or stay back and cast spells, and so on. And on the other end of the spectrum, MAD is terrible when it forces classes to be schizophrenic, constantly being pulled in multiple directions.

lordmarcoos
2007-09-11, 02:49 PM
Mike_G: I think the term "a little more MAD" doesn't jive with the context of the OP's post. It's more like "a step down the AD ladder" would be good for the wizard. That's just a nitpick though :smalltongue:

I think the egregious parts are the top and bottom of the ladder: you can say MAD doesn't effect roleplaying or background, but if you're, say, a monk, there's only one set of stats that's useful because so many things need to be high, so it prevents you from being, say, a charismatic monk who proselytizes about the benefits of achieving inner peace and such. Or you could, but you'd suck at something else. Whereas even a DAD or VAD character could pull off one high random stat for fluffy reasons, which do matter in this case as it's hard to find reason for roleplaying a smart guy with only 7 intelligence.

On the other hand, SAD is a problem only because it breaks balance. If classes were all VAD or DAD, they'd be more balanced stat-wise.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 02:53 PM
I would venture to say, Merlin, that the difference you're indicating between the Monk and the Swordsage is the difference between MAD and VAD.

I would agree that the disparity of focus between articles is probably confusing, but the purpose of this article is to demonstrate and define what MAD and it's variants are, as well as provide reasons why they can be difficult to manage.

As for what Lord Marcoos just said regarding DAD and VAD, that is it completely: SAD breaks balance, MAD makes the class nigh-unplayable.

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 02:54 PM
Fax, I think the biggest issue here is that you seem to switch between defining "good" as "well-designed" and "mechanically potent" between and during these articles. Certainly, throwing all of one's eggs into a single proverbial basket makes for powerful characters, but it also makes for precious little variation. As an example, the primary defining characteristic of Wizards is that they're extremely intelligent. The secondary defining characteristic is whogivesacrap.


Of course, you can also look at it as increasing variation. My wizard has a high INT, just like any other one, but I put extra points in CHA, and RP him as a Casanova-like guy. Since I only need one high score, I can make my secondary defining trait whatever I please, as opposed to a monk, who'll be seriously limited if he dumps CON or DEX to make a guy with high CHA.

Indon
2007-09-11, 02:58 PM
As for what Lord Marcoos just said regarding DAD and VAD, that is it completely: SAD breaks balance, MAD makes the class nigh-unplayable.

MAD is only 'nigh-unplayable' because SAD is so much more powerful by comparison.

Looking at classless systems, _all_ stats are 'relied' on; all characters are MAD. None are 'nigh-unplayable'.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 03:00 PM
Looking at classless systems, _all_ stats are 'relied' on; all characters are MAD. None are 'nigh-unplayable'. ...except we're not talking about a classless system here, so that's about as relevant as the average rainfall in Illinois.

Curmudgeon
2007-09-11, 03:00 PM
Magic items can help in this regard, but who is better off: the SAD character with a +6 item, or a MAD character with three +2 items? This comparison is wonky. A single +6 item (36,000 gp) exactly matches the cost of
two +4 items (16,000 gp each); and
a single +2 item (4,000 gp)
So let's make a better comparison. With standard point buy, a SAD character beginning with an 18 in their important stat and purchasing a +6 item for that stat has one thing that works very well for them, and some glaring weaknesses. A MAD character beginning with a bunch of 14 stats and purchasing the one +2 and two +4 items will have solid saving throws and few weaknesses, but no single great strength. The SAD character will be all offense and no defense, whereas the MAD character can mix it up and be better suited to a variety of roles.

Journey
2007-09-11, 03:16 PM
D&D is a heroic game, and the players are supposed to be champions, leaders, and the stuff of legend.None of these is necessarily dependent on combat optimization unless in your games combat optimization is the only way to achieve them. This substantially weakens the implications behind your post.


...except we're not talking about a classless system here, so that's about as relevant as the average rainfall in Illinois.No, I think he means that party role and character utility aren't limited to combat power and optimization, regardless of whether the system is classless or not, and therefore that the implications Fax intends aren't correct (for anybody but an optimizer, really).

Indon
2007-09-11, 03:23 PM
No, I think he means that party role and character utility aren't limited to combat power and optimization, regardless of whether the system is classless or not, and therefore that the implications Fax intends aren't correct (for anybody but an optimizer, really).

Kinda close.

My point is more, the degree of power granted by AD is purely relative; there's nothing wrong with MAD when everyone is MAD, or even DAD/VAD, to a point.

MADness isn't bad if everyone has it. :smallbiggrin:

Tormsskull
2007-09-11, 03:28 PM
I think you, since you are quite a prolific homebrewer, should further up this article or make another article (i.e. expand on) *AD from a design standpoint. I think suggesting to potential homebrewers to avoid SAD would be a good idea, as most people are in agreement that it is one of the primary reasons for a class to be overpowered.

In other words, you seem to be writing this article (mostly) from a player who chooses to optimize's viewpoint (f/x: "Why Higher Dependencies Are Difficult To Manage"), and I think the RPG community would benefit more from a GM's view or designer's view.

My $.02

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 03:31 PM
I think you, since you are quite a prolific homebrewer, should further up this article or make another article (i.e. expand on) *AD from a design standpoint. I think suggesting to potential homebrewers to avoid SAD would be a good idea, as most people are in agreement that it is one of the primary reasons for a class to be overpowered.

In other words, you seem to be writing this article (mostly) from a player who chooses to optimize's viewpoint (f/x: "Why Higher Dependencies Are Difficult To Manage"), and I think the RPG community would benefit more from a GM's view or designer's view.

My $.02
That is a good idea. Perhaps my next article will be about class design.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 03:31 PM
Fax, I think the biggest issue here is that you seem to switch between defining "good" as "well-designed" and "mechanically potent" between and during these articles. I agree completely (especially since this is *exactly* the same concern I brought up for his last article).


Basically, from a design perspective, MAD is great when it forces decisions to be made -- what is this Swordsage's particular style and how does he cover his weaknesses, does this Favored Soul want to throw down or stay back and cast spells, and so on. And on the other end of the spectrum, MAD is terrible when it forces classes to be schizophrenic, constantly being pulled in multiple directions.

Completely agree again.


This comparison is wonky. A single +6 item (36,000 gp) exactly matches the cost of
two +4 items (16,000 gp each); and
a single +2 item (4,000 gp)
So let's make a better comparison. With standard point buy, a SAD character beginning with an 18 in their important stat and purchasing a +6 item for that stat has one thing that works very well for them, and some glaring weaknesses. A MAD character beginning with a bunch of 14 stats and purchasing the one +2 and two +4 items will have solid saving throws and few weaknesses, but no single great strength. The SAD character will be all offense and no defense, whereas the MAD character can mix it up and be better suited to a variety of roles.

Also right.

If you're going to make an analysis of a mechanical system based on math, your math has to be right, Fax. The MAD character isn't getting 2 +2 items to the SAD's +6. He's actually getting 2 +4s, and a +2.


and I think the RPG community would benefit more from a GM's view or designer's view.

I already did one of those (In fact, the article was pretty highly acclaimed when it first came out, though it only kind of got this sort of "AD" derailing here for some reason...) which, last I checked, has been adopted by Dreamscarred Press ^^;;

Link for your enjoyment.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55947

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 03:43 PM
No, I think he means that party role and character utility aren't limited to combat power and optimization, regardless of whether the system is classless or not, and therefore that the implications Fax intends aren't correct (for anybody but an optimizer, really). I don't think that's really what he was saying, but ignoring that fact...

The very idea of a class system is that it predisposes a character to certain categories of skills, and D&D definitely follows that model. For example, try as he might, a Fighter will never be as good at stealth or avoiding/disabling traps as a Rogue, in fact he will barely even be competent at the latter.

Remember, it's not just combat power that we're talking about here, it's power with anything at all. Class matters.

skywalker
2007-09-11, 04:01 PM
Furthermore, not all classes are equally dependent on the attributes they're supposed to be dependent on. Since a paladin is not a primary spellcaster, and can function quite well without spells that allow saving throws, it doesn't need a particularly high wisdom since beyond, 13 or 14 it doesn't really do anything useful.

A 13 or 14 is rather high for a stat that doesn't do anything besides power some rather ineffective spells.

Indon
2007-09-11, 04:03 PM
A 13 or 14 is rather high for a stat that doesn't do anything besides power some rather ineffective spells.

If the spells are that ineffective, then you don't need them, now do you?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 04:11 PM
If you're going to make an analysis of a mechanical system based on math, your math has to be right, Fax. The MAD character isn't getting 2 +2 items to the SAD's +6. He's actually getting 2 +4s, and a +2.
Actually, the original post says he gets 3 +2s, but yes, my math is still off even taking that into account.

Despite that, the +6 is still going to be a better choice. For one, it takes up less in the way of item slots--and don't argue that stacking effects onto existing items is a valid way around this. It is a valid method, yes, but then your gear costs yet more.

For another, the character is getting a larger bonus to all of his relevant class features from one source, instead of getting a smaller bonus to all of his relevant class features from multiple sources. Due to this, the +6 is still a better investment.

Personally, I think both SAD and MAD shouldn't exist. DAD is what I find best for casters, and VAD is what I find best for non-casters or partial casters. But this isn't a perfect game, and finding even partial perfection is difficult.

Jasdoif
2007-09-11, 04:35 PM
Actually, the original post says he gets 3 +2s, but yes, my math is still off even taking that into account.For an extreme example, compare a single +4 to four +2s.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-11, 05:06 PM
MAD, SAD, DAD, and VAD are all the children of concepts that are throwbacks to the days of 1st Edition, really.

Back in the days of 1e Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, the official method of finding stands was to roll 3d6 for each Attribute, one at a time. Then you made your character based on how the dice rolls came up. The four "basic" classes: Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric all had a single "Primary Attribute". You got an XP bonus for having a high Primary Attribute, and having high scores in other attributes was just helping you survive.

Also, you had to have a minimum score in certain attributes to take a class. The four basics were notoriously easy to get: Fighters required a Strength of 9, Thieves a Dexterity of 9, Magic-Users an Intelligence of 9, and Clerics a Wisdom of 9. Since you rolled 3d6, there was a good chance you'd get average in at least one of those scores, but in case you didn't there was the "Hopeless Character" rule where the DM could declare your rolls to suck too much to play any character with it. Free do-overs for the win!

There were also special classes such as Ranger, Assassin, Druids, etc., but most of these classes had more than one Primary Attribute, and the minimum scores across the board were much more stringent. Paladins were notoriously difficult to roll on straight 3d6s, requiring a minimum Charisma of 17, along with several other above-average scores. Now, there was something of an "MAD" in these classes; however, since you had to meet certain minimums to play a Ranger, for example, this wasn't as much an issue.

Primary attributes and minimum attributes carried over into second edition, and weren't removed until we hit third edition Dungeons and Dragons. 3e removed all concept of minimums and primary attributes. It also change the popular alternate rolling method -- 4d6 and eliminating the lowest -- into the standard rolling method. However, there's still echoes of the past there, as the classes more or less stayed true to their original type (the Rogue being a major exception*). The Ranger remained a stealthy hunter who wielded two weapons; the Paladin remained the divine, inspiring champion of his diety.

However unpopular they were, the minimums did serve a purpose in steering a player away from a class that wouldn't do well with the rolls he's made. The new system still has a flavor of the old 1e and 2e, but favors a player planning out what he wants to be before he rolls. Thus, there's nothing steering a player away from a difficult build. ( Note, this isn't saying the old system was better or the new is worse, merely in this specific matter.)

Enter the point-buy system of stats. The point-buy system removes the annoying randomness of dice and allows a player to tailor-make a character based on what he'd like to play. Unfortunately, the downside of the Point Buy system is that it favors specialization in a single attribute more than it encourages well-roundedness. Thus, it's easy to make an exceptional Fighter with the point-buy system, but difficult to make an exceptional Paladin. The Fighter is really just looking to get his Strength and Constitution in the upper tiers, whereas the Paladin needs those attributes as well as high Wisdom and Charisma.

1e built the Paladin this way, and acknowledged these needs by putting in difficult-to-reach minimum attributes. 3e removed those, putting more control to the player in selecting which class he'd enjoy, but left enough flavor of the old to introduced these new issues such as MAD, DAD, or VAD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In original 1e, the Thief class worried less about Intelligence. The Thief class had a set of abilities ( Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, etc.) that were expressed as a percentage. The Assassin and Monk classes shared some of these but they were primarily a feature for the Thief. In 1e these rose a set amount. 2e gave the Thief player a number of points to distribute in the various abilities, putting more control with the players. 3e scraps the system altogether in favor of the skill system, allowing that Rogues are better at certain skills than others. The Rogues are given a rather large skill set as well, thus creating a need for higher intelligence to be able to specialize in more skills, as a generalized Rogue does poorly.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-11, 05:06 PM
This is nice. I'd been kicking the idea around in my head (without a name) before I even joined this site, and it's nice to see that people are addressing it. I think it's extremely important that casters get a little bit of DAD, or even better, VAD. Preferably, I would say that every class should be VAD, because:

1) It allows for better customization (See the Four Types of Rogues); and
2) It puts characters on a more even playing field.

I'll admit, casters probably don't have much need for three or four stats, and most casters just want to sling spells. So as a compromise, lets hope that at the very least they have two stats to worry about like most other classes.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 05:39 PM
I'm really uncomfortable with the proliferation of all these new acronyms, since they seem largely frivolous. MAD and VAD are *basically* the same thing, except the classes you're pointing out as VAD actually have class features to back them up. DAD is two, so that's also "multiple."

A Monk is MAD, because he wants Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Constitution. A Cleric is MAD, because he generally wants Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. The main difference is that the Cleric has good class features, and the Monk doesn't. The Monk only "needs" high stats in everything (like Strength and Dexterity) not because those scale up his abilities, but because he totally sucks and having higher stats buffs him up (just like it does for every character).

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 05:43 PM
I'm really uncomfortable with the proliferation of all these new acronyms, since they seem largely frivolous. MAD and VAD are *basically* the same thing, except the classes you're pointing out as VAD actually have class features to back them up. DAD is two, so that's also "multiple."

A Monk is MAD, because he wants Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Constitution. A Cleric is MAD, because he wants Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. The main difference is that the Cleric has good class features, and the Monk doesn't.

By the definition I provided at the beginning of the article--which the rest of the article's terms are largely dependent upon--the Cleric actually has DAD (Wisdom and Charisma) since he has class features and an intended party role (healer/caster) that only function off of those two statistics. Anything else is nice but not necessary. The Monk, however, has class features that function on Wisdom and Dexterity, and an intended party role (that of melee combatant) that requires Strength and Constitution--therefore, the Monk is MAD.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 05:45 PM
By the definition I provided at the beginning of the article--which the rest of the article's terms are largely dependent upon--the Cleric actually has DAD (Wisdom and Charisma) since he has class features and an intended party role (healer/caster) that only function off of those two statistics. Anything else is nice but not necessary. The Monk, however, has class features that function on Wisdom and Dexterity, and an intended party role (that of melee combatant) that requires Strength and Constitution--therefore, the Monk is MAD.

You say that his intended party role is healer/caster, but the designers of the game have said that cleric's role was intentionally expanded beyond that. Assuming an intended role seems a bit silly, and moreover an intended role is *completely irrelevant* to how a class *actually* plays and what it *actually* is.

If you're talking about some "intended party role" that you just went ahead and made up, then everything goes out the window, because unless you're the actual designer you can't actually prove intent.

Additionally, DAD is two, and two is multiple, and multiple ability dependancy is MAD. Sure, you can make more definitions, but they're not really *needed.* That's my point. We don't need 5 or 6 different acronyms to describe something very simple (and indeed, it makes it harder to accurately describe these things, since the attributes you want tend to vary by build. For example, a ray-jockey Wizard might want to make sure his Dex is high, possibly even more than his Int!)

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 05:47 PM
You say that his intended party role is healer/caster, but the designers of the game have said that cleric's role was intentionally expanded beyond that. Assuming an intended role seems a bit silly, and moreover an intended role is *completely irrelevant* to how a class *actually* plays and what it *actually* is.

Except the game is playtested towards specific roles, which is why there is so much brokenness available when you step outside the realms of what the classes were originally intended for.

Also: VAD is different from MAD: VAD is about being able to pick one statistic and focus on it, but not have to have the same statistic from character to character. In the example I used, you can have a Rogue with Dex 10, Int 10 and Cha 18, or one with Dex 18, Int 10, Cha 10, or one with Dex 10, Int 18, Cha 10, and still have each be perfectly functionable. Hell, one could have a Rogue who focuses on Str and/or Con over other statistics and still be a perfectly reasonable build. Meanwhile, a character with MAD--such as a Monk--requires high statistics in all of those scores, not one or two, and certainly not different scores between builds.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 05:48 PM
I'm really uncomfortable with the proliferation of all these new acronyms, since they seem largely frivolous. MAD and VAD are *basically* the same thing, except the classes you're pointing out as VAD actually have class features to back them up. DAD is two, so that's also "multiple."

A Monk is MAD, because he wants Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Constitution. A Cleric is MAD, because he wants Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. The main difference is that the Cleric has good class features, and the Monk doesn't.

I agree. MAD is not something a class does or doesn't have. All classes have it in different degrees. Paladins can get by with the exact statistics of Fighters or Barbarians, but they get shiny bonuses to saves (and damage every once in a while) when they have high Charisma. Monks have their incredible MAD because they are a weak class and don't have the ability to cover their weaknesses through equipment and therefore rely on having nearly straight 16+ ability scores.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 05:51 PM
I agree. MAD is not something a class does or doesn't have. All classes have it in different degrees. Paladins can get by with the exact statistics of Fighters or Barbarians, but they get shiny bonuses to saves (and damage every once in a while) when they have high Charisma. Monks have their incredible MAD because they are a weak class and don't have the ability to cover their weaknesses through equipment and therefore rely on having nearly straight 16+ ability scores.

I'll quote myself on this:


For the purposes of this discussion, "Attribute Dependency" is defined as "having class features or a intended party role that benefits greatly from having a higher attribute."A Paladin has class features (Smite Evil, Divine Grace, Lay On Hands) that benefit greatly from a high Charisma.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 05:52 PM
Except the game is playtested towards specific roles, which is why there is so much brokenness available when you step outside the realms of what the classes were originally intended for.

Also: VAD is different from MAD: VAD is about being able to pick one statistic and focus on it, but not have to have the same statistic from character to character. In the example I used, you can have a Rogue with Dex 10, Int 10 and Cha 18, or one with Dex 18, Int 10, Cha 10, or one with Dex 10, Int 18, Cha 10, and still have each be perfectly functionable. Hell, one could have a Rogue who focuses on Str and/or Con over other statistics and still be a perfectly reasonable build. Meanwhile, a character with MAD--such as a Monk--requires high statistics in all of those scores, not one or two, and certainly not different scores between builds.

See, this is exactly what I'm saying... you're taking a class that sucks, and saying "since this class sucks, and you need to give arbitrary buffs to the character through really, really high ability scores, it's MAD." That doesn't actually have to do with the class relying on different ability scores. That has to do with the fact that the class's class features *SUCK.*

Heck, if we're going to talk VAD, you can say that the MONK is VAD. You can actually vary the statistics you want to focus in, taking things like Carmendine Monk (or whatever it was called) to focus in int and dump Wisdom into the gutter. You can choose to be a strong monk that's not so dextrous, or a dextrous one that's not so strong. The problem with the monk is that whatever you focus in, you still suck. so you want to have all your "VAD" options maxxed to gain the maximum benefit of all those features. You can do the same thing with the mentioned Rogue. If Rogue was underpowered (say it had half the skill points, a d4 HD, none of the survival special abilities, and less sneak attack), you'd say Rogue was MAD because it needed Constitution to survive, Dexterity to have a survivable AC, Int to have decent skill points, and Strength to do decent damage. But its class features don't suck, so you can take those things at reasonable levels and be fine.

See, I think you're confusing issues here. The problem with the monk isn't that it's MAD, but that its class features kinda just suck.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 05:57 PM
See, this is exactly what I'm saying... you're taking a class that sucks, and saying "since this class sucks, and you need to give arbitrary buffs to the character through really, really high ability scores, it's MAD." That doesn't actually have to do with the class relying on different ability scores. That has to do with the fact that the class's class features *SUCK.*

Heck, if we're going to talk VAD, you can say that the MONK is VAD. You can actually vary the statistics you want to focus in, taking things like Carmendine Monk (or whatever it was called) to focus in int and dump Wisdom into the gutter.

...and the class features suck for two reasons: 1. they're not really all that powerful and/or useful; and 2. they don't rely upon a common statistic. But if you want a better example of a class with MAD, I'm afraid I don't have one: the Monk is by far the worst offender of MAD in the game.

VAD is not something you acquire through feat expenditure; VAD is something that's built into the class--as you can see from the Rogue example I keep bringing up.

Leon
2007-09-11, 05:58 PM
MAD is ok as long you (a) have a few good high rolls or (b) you dont mind everything being slightly lower along the board

While its not "optimal" (then again why should everything be) the vast majority of sample PCs and PrCs use the standard array or Elite array - both are notoriaus in lacking high numbers in any number but they still work all the same

most classes have a Minor MAD about them even if they are are a SAD class - CON is generaly high on people list of things to make sure they have enough of

Starbuck_II
2007-09-11, 05:59 PM
OneWinged4ngel:
So you say Monks are MAD because they suck:

Not they suck because they are MAD?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 06:02 PM
A Paladin has class features (Smite Evil, Divine Grace, Lay On Hands) that benefit greatly from a high Charisma.
Yes, but saying a Paladin (Heavily reliant on Strength and benefitting from Constitution and Charisma with a slight boost from Wisdom) has horrible MAD while a wizard (Probably attempting equivalent scores in Intelligence, Dexterity and Constitution) is immune to such an affliction is slightly unjustified.
The Paladin class is just not as strong as the Wizard class and therefore has to inflate all of its abilities as much as it can in order to milk every benefit from their class to even compete with the wizard.

(The 4.0 PHB has to make up some synonyms for "Class" to avoid sentences like the prior.)

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:05 PM
Actually, I have a better example. The Psychic Warrior requires Str/Dex and Con for his intended role of combatant, and Wis for his powers. As such, he requires high scores in each statistic to function and is therefore MAD. He is not VAD because if he were to not put a high score in one of those abilities, he would not be able to use all of his class features to their fullest extent.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:06 PM
OneWinged4ngel:
So you say Monks are MAD because they suck: No, I'm saying that they're MAD *and* they suck. And that Fax is saying they are MAD (as opposed to some other classification) because they suck.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:11 PM
Yes, but saying a Paladin (Heavily reliant on Strength and benefitting from Constitution and Charisma with a slight boost from Wisdom) has horrible MAD while a wizard (Probably attempting equivalent scores in Intelligence, Dexterity and Constitution) is immune to such an affliction is slightly unjustified.
The Paladin class is just not as strong as the Wizard class and therefore has to inflate all of its abilities as much as it can in order to milk every benefit from their class to even compete with the wizard.

(The 4.0 PHB has to make up some synonyms for "Class" to avoid sentences like the prior.)

Then let us compare the Paladin class to something more on its level. Say, the Barbarian. The Barbarian's class features rely on a high Constitution score (for Rage duration) and have no other requirements. His intended role requires high Str and Con, since he is primarily a melee combatant. The only reason he would need a high Dex is because he doesn't get proficiency with heavy armor--and this is not necessary due to mithral armor.

Note how the Barbarian's class features' requirements not only synergize with his intended role's requirements, but also augment them: when a Barbarian rages, his Str and Con increase, making him better at his intended role.

Compare this to the Paladin, whose features rely on Wisdom and Charisma, while his intended role relies on Strength and Constitution. There is no synergy between his features and role requirements, and therefore the Paladin is either spread thin between these scores or forfeits some of his class features--neither of which is a satisfying possibility. It is this lack of synergy that makes the Paladin a MAD class, while the Barbarian is not.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:12 PM
He is not VAD because if he were to not put a high score in one of those abilities, he would not be able to use all of his class features to their fullest extent.

The problem with this definition is that it applies to EVERY class, and thus NO class is VAD. Even a Wizard without his DEXTERITY maxxed out can't use his abilities to the fullest extent, because he won't be able to hit as well with his rays, go first in initiative as often, or avoid being hit as much. He's not using his class features to their "fullest extent." So he's MAD by the definition you just gave.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 06:12 PM
The Psychic warrior can get by with any positive Wisdom as it has ways to improve or cover its other capabilities (Body Adjustment, Animal Affinity, Vigor, Thicken Skin, Precognition).


...if he were to not put a high score in one of those abilities, he would not be able to use all of his class features to their fullest extent.
This is true of all classes with HP, saves and skills. I suppose this means any Charisma-dependant class gets a bit of a nerf, though.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:12 PM
No, I'm saying that they're MAD *and* they suck. And that Fax is saying they are MAD (as opposed to some other classification) because they suck.

I don't ever actually recall saying Monks suck. I recall saying that Monks have MAD, because their class features are reliant on different statistics than their intended role does. Monks do suck, and MAD only exacerbates the problem.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:13 PM
I don't ever actually recall saying Monks suck.

I didn't say you said monks suck, I said that the reason you were saying they were MAD was because they sucked. It's causality.

1) The monk class is introduced, and it sucks.
2) It (like EVERY OTHER CLASS) sucks less if you give it reeeeally high ability scores.
3) Fax says it's MAD because giving it arbitrarily high ability scores makes it suck less.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:14 PM
The problem with this definition is that it applies to EVERY class, and thus NO class is VAD. Even a Wizard without his DEXTERITY maxxed out can't use his abilities to the fullest extent, because he won't be able to hit as well with his rays, go first in initiative as often, or avoid being hit as much. He's not using his class features to their "fullest extent." So he's MAD by the definition you just gave.

Again, remember the definition I posted at the beginning of the article: the Wizard does not have class features that benefit greatly from a higher Dexterity score. He can benefit from a higher Dexterity just as much as anyone else can, and therefore--in the terms above--is not considered "reliant" upon it.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:16 PM
Again, remember the definition I posted at the beginning of the article: the Wizard does not have class features that benefit greatly from a higher Dexterity score. He can benefit from a higher Dexterity just as much as anyone else can, and therefore--in the terms above--is not considered "reliant" upon it.

Uhm, then Monks aren't MAD by your definition, since their class features only rely on Wisdom. He gets the same bonuses from Strength and Dexterity and Constitution as everyone else: Higher to hit, AC, damage, saves, hp...

If the Wizard's rays or combat buffs that would benefit from high physical stats and make him a melee monster don't make him MAD, then the Monk's Improved Grapple doesn't either.

(Indeed, ever hear of the grapplemancer? He want's strength for the EXACT SAME REASON a grappling monk does. And does it better than a monk because he doesn't suck.)

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-11, 06:16 PM
I dunno, but if I were a monk, I'd be pretty mad right now. Grr!

We need some new acronyms, too. Where's RAD? BAD? GLAD? FAD?


Really, as I hinted rather verbosely in my last post, Monks are fine if the attributes they need are high enough. MAD becomes an issue with point-buy, where one can only raise an attribute to high levels at the cost of keeping other attributes at low levels. Once you bring the dice into play with generating attributes, MAD is a non-issue, or rather an issue of player choice over attribute limits. If a player is rolling well on his dice, he can create a Monk or Paladin that will excel in his class.

A standard 25-point buy assumes that if the players were rolling, they'd achieve arithmetic mean scores on a set of six 4d6 rolls, removing the lowest. The result comes out 12 and a fraction. If you distributed points evenly over all six stats, you get five 12s and a 13 just for kicks, which brings a similar arithmetic mean. Huzzah!

The result is a 25-point buy means you'll be creating "average adventurers", which is better than "average townspeople", but often a bit lacking when it comes to playing a good Monk or Paladin.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:16 PM
3) Fax says it's MAD because giving it arbitrarily high ability scores makes it suck less.

I said it's MAD because it's class features rely on two scores (Wis and Dex), while it's role relies on two different scores (Str and Con), not because it sucks less with high scores.


Uhm, then Monks aren't MAD by your definition, since their class features only rely on Wisdom. He gets the same bonuses from Strength and Dexterity and Constitution as everyone else: Higher to hit, AC, damage, saves, hp...

Except that its intended role requires Str, Con--as a combatant--and Dex--as an unarmored combatant. He is not as good as what he is supposed to do without those abilities.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:20 PM
Except that its intended role requires Str, Con--as a combatant--and Dex--as an unarmored combatant. He is not as good as what he is supposed to do without those abilities.

There it is again: Intended. So if I was the designer and I just say "The monk isn't intended to be a combatant," then he'd not be MAD. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to analyze what a class *actually is*, rather than debating what it was intended to be.

Additionally, by that definition, EVERY class intended for a melee role is MAD, always, because "he is not as good at what he is supposed to do without those abilities." That means the Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, Cleric, Favored Soul (both have been said to have been intended to have some melee power), Duskblade, Hexblade, Ranger, Paladin, and so forth are *ALL* MAD. EVERY full BAB class is MAD. Half the medium BAB ones are too.


Monks are fine if the attributes they need are high enough.

Actually, they still suck compared to, you know, other classes with attributes *just as high.* And a fair class comparison always considers equal resources.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 06:23 PM
Except that its intended role requires Str, Con--as a combatant--and Dex--as an unarmored combatant. He is not as good as what he is supposed to do without those abilities.
Yet a Cleric with the same scores (switching Charisma for Dex) would be vastly superior. The monk's problem is not statistic reliance but holistic class design.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-11, 06:23 PM
There it is again: Intended. So if I was the designer and I just say "The monk isn't intended to be a combatant," then he'd not be MAD. You don't see a problem with that?

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to analyze what a class *actually is*, rather than debating what it was intended to be.

Alright, let's leave the word "intended" out of it. The Monk is a combatant: his AC increase progression, unarmed strike damage increase progression, and class features (stunning fist, quivering palm, et al), and skill list all point towards that. As a combatant, he requires melee-centric statistics--that is, Str and Con. However, his class features require Wis, and--to a lesser extent--Dex. To me, being dependent on four statistics--no matter how crappy the actual features of the class are--means the class has MAD.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-11, 06:24 PM
To be really brief, I just don't see any benefit into adding two more acronyms into the alphabet soup of DnD. As has already been pointed out, "DAD" involves two attributes, which is by definition "multiple." So in order to illustrate your point, we already have an arbitrary definition by the first acronym ("multiple" being explicitly different from its normal English usage).

This simply seems a sometimes-clunky digital interpretation of an analog issue. What you've actually said is for the most part true, but the context you've framed it in doesn't strike me as the best one.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:27 PM
Alright, let's leave the word "intended" out of it. The Monk is a combatant: his AC increase progression, unarmed strike damage increase progression, and class features (stunning fist, quivering palm, et al), and skill list all point towards that. As a combatant, he requires melee-centric statistics--that is, Str and Con. However, his class features require Wis, and--to a lesser extent--Dex. To me, being dependent on four statistics--no matter how crappy the actual features of the class are--means the class has MAD.

See the edit of my above post (sorry, I have a very bad habit of writing half my post about 30 seconds after I post the first half)

This means that, say, a Warblade who want Str, Dex, and Con for his melee role as well as an Int for his class features is MAD, not VAD (as he was previously classified.) And that goes for *all* melee classes, because they *all* want Str, Dex, and Con. Yes, even if you're in the heaviest armor possible, because even then you can benefit from Mithral and Nimbleness more efficiently than +1 enhancements (and that, of course, adds to what might otherwise be a low touch AC).

Also, if we take out the "intended" bit, then we go back to saying that Clerics and so forth are MAD too.


To be really brief, I just don't see any benefit into adding two more acronyms into the alphabet soup of DnD. As has already been pointed out, "DAD" involves two attributes, which is by definition "multiple." So in order to illustrate your point, we already have an arbitrary definition by the first acronym ("multiple" being explicitly different from its normal English usage).

This simply seems a sometimes-clunky digital interpretation of an analog issue. What you've actually said is for the most part true, but the context you've framed it in doesn't strike me as the best one.

I agree that the new acronyms are rather frivolous.


Yet a Cleric with the same scores (switching Charisma for Dex) would be vastly superior. The monk's problem is not statistic reliance but holistic class design.

Exactly! MAD isn't the monk's problem here. There's nothing wrong with benefitting from Dex, Con, Str, and Wis, or any collection of four stats. Plenty of perfectly fine classes do it.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 06:37 PM
if you want a better example of a class with MAD, I'm afraid I don't have one: the Monk is by far the worst offender of MAD in the game. The 3.0 Psion. It's the only thing I've seen to have worse MAD than the Monk, but at least they had the good sense to fix that for 3.5.

OneWinged4ngel, I think you need to step back a moment and read your own posts. You are making points reliant on such absurd suggestions as "although nearly all of his abilities are focused on combat, the Monk isn't necessarily designed to be a combatant"...you may think you have a technical justification for these ideas, but in practical terms, you sound like you don't have any idea what is really being discussed here. I know you do have a point, but you might need to take a break and refocus so it can be portrayed more clearly.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 06:55 PM
OneWinged4ngel, I think you need to step back a moment and read your own posts. You are making points reliant on such absurd suggestions as "although nearly all of his abilities are focused on combat, the Monk isn't necessarily designed to be a combatant"

Actually, I used an established form of logical argument (Reductio ad absurdum, also known as the apagogical argument) demonstrating that the opponent's claim is invalid by taking a logical extrapolation based on the person's claims that produces an absurd conclusion. Commonly used in formal debate. If the conclusion is indeed absurd, and indeed a logical implication of the person's claim, then that means that I've successfully defeated their argument.

What I actually said was "If we take your premise, then the designer could just say "The monk isn't intended for combat" and then he wouldn't be MAD, because intent is actually fully reliant on what the designer meant to do and not what he actually did do." Which, of course, is absurd. The nature of the class doesn't change because someone just came out and said that he intended it to be something other than what it actually was. If you didn't intend to press a button, that doesn't mean you didn't actually press it. If you didn't intend to make something a combatant, that doesn't mean that it's not actually a combatant (Fax was saying that he thought the cleric wasn't intended to be a combatant).

I never said that he wasn't designed as a combatant. I said that basing an argument about the ACTUAL nature of the class based on designer intent is illogical.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-11, 07:12 PM
Actually, I used an established form of logical argument (Reductio ad absurdum, also known as the apagogical argument) demonstrating that the opponent's claim is invalid by taking a logical extrapolation based on the person's claims that produces an absurd conclusion. Commonly used in formal debate. If the conclusion is indeed absurd, and indeed a logical implication of the person's claim, then that means that I've successfully defeated their argument.

What I actually said was "If we take your premise, then the designer could just say "The monk isn't intended for combat" and then he wouldn't be MAD, because intent is actually fully reliant on what the designer meant to do and not what he actually did do." Which, of course, is absurd. The nature of the class doesn't change because someone just came out and said that he intended it to be something other than what it actually was. If you didn't intend to press a button, that doesn't mean you didn't actually press it. If you didn't intend to make something a combatant, that doesn't mean that it's not actually a combatant (Fax was saying that he thought the cleric wasn't intended to be a combatant).

I never said that he wasn't designed as a combatant. I said that basing an argument about the ACTUAL nature of the class based on designer intent is illogical.

Yes, but that argument was used before in the past to say a (runner) car can never be faster than turtle.
And we all know turtles are not faster than (runner) cars.
The true wording as runner, but in modern times car fits better.

The reason is to even get past the turtle: you must first catch up to where it was. And since distance can divide infinitely: you will never win versus a turtle.

But we all know that doesn't make sense logically. I'm still surprised people in greece were fooled.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-11, 07:20 PM
Actually, they still suck compared to, you know, other classes with attributes *just as high.* And a fair class comparison always considers equal resources.

Actually, that's a factor of something other than their status as a MAD character. I was making an assessment based upon the subject matter.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 07:24 PM
Actually, that's a factor of something other than their status as a MAD character. I was making an assessment based upon the subject matter.
No. That's the point. You are not either a "MAD character" or "not a MAD character." Classes are labeled MAD that have weak class abilities, making players pump every stat for all they're worth just to have a semblence of competence.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-11, 07:27 PM
No. That's the point. You are not either a "MAD character" or "not a MAD character." Classes are labeled MAD that have weak class abilities, making players pump every stat for all they're worth just to have a semblence of competence.

Please note the original quote. I was commenting on his comment towards my comments. Your comment is out of sync with our comments. Any comments?

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 07:38 PM
Actually, I used an established form of logical argument (Reductio ad absurdum, also known as the apagogical argument) demonstrating that the opponent's claim is invalid by taking a logical extrapolation based on the person's claims that produces an absurd conclusion. Commonly used in formal debate. If the conclusion is indeed absurd, and indeed a logical implication of the person's claim, then that means that I've successfully defeated their argument. I reiterate my point--you might want to stop and collect your thoughts before you write. You are writing things with an intent to make a specific point, but your actual words on the screen are not conveying that point. Your frequent and extensive edits and restatements are further evidence that you are not getting your point across clearly on the first go, and are relying on extensive replies and clarifications to remedy your first statement.

Given how these boards tend to respond to such things, I continue to urge you to consider your points carefully before you make your first keystroke. They are not coming across with the meaning you intend.

As a side note, the way that you presented your argument was not a formal reductio ad absurdum. A true reductio ad absurdum is a "proof by contradiction" in which the eventual conclusion creates a formal contradiction with the premise, which your argument did not even attempt. Your attempt at proof instead incorporated an "appeal to ridicule", which is a much weaker argument and often rooted in a logical fallacy. You did not prove so much as attempt to persuade, in other words.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 07:56 PM
But we all know that doesn't make sense logically. I'm still surprised people in greece were fooled.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this story. And... it's not a logical argument if it's, you know, illogical.


I reiterate my point--you might want to stop and collect your thoughts before you write. You are writing things with an intent to make a specific point, but your actual words on the screen are not conveying that point. Your frequent and extensive edits and restatements are further evidence that you are not getting your point across clearly on the first go, and are relying on extensive replies and clarifications to remedy your first statement.

No, your point is... a personal attack. You're saying that I don't think straight. That's argumentum ad hominem (which is a logical fallacy), an attack on my character, and heck, it's also a red herring (aka ignoratio elenchi) (also a logical fallacy), because it's a topic irrelevant to the actual point. I also know you disagree with me and just putting on a ruse of trying to be helpful ("helping the stupid idiot collect his thoughts so he doesn't say something stupid." Doesn't get much more insulting than that.), because you're the one who followed me through three threads so far doing this in different ways, arguing and derailing my own thread.

A failure of someone to understand is not necessary a failure of someone to present a point. Just because someone doesn't understand the definition of taking a limit in calculus doesn't mean that it's not right or well-presented.

You are not arguing against me in any form related to my point, but merely trying to discredit my character.


Your frequent and extensive edits
...A clear snipe. I already said that I almost always edit my posts multiple times right after I post in order to organize quotes and formatting more easily.


As a side note, the way that you presented your argument was not a formal reductio ad absurdum. A true reductio ad absurdum is a "proof by contradiction" in which the eventual conclusion creates a formal contradiction with the premise, which your argument did not even attempt. Your attempt at proof instead incorporated an "appeal to ridicule", which is a much weaker argument and often rooted in a logical fallacy. You did not prove so much as attempt to persuade, in other words.

I already presented contradictions. Fax has stated that Clerics are not MAD, even though by his definitions I've shown that they are. Fax has stated that he's talking about the nature of classes, but also that the intent matters, and I've shown that that doesn't actually have any impact on what the class *actually is.* An argument cannot be both true and false. Thus, Fax has violated the law of non-contradiction.

Further, even if it was the weak form of reductio ad absurdum, the opponent has to actually accept the supposedly ridiculous conclusion as true in order for his argument to continue to be valid, which Fax did not. So, even a weak reductio ad absurdum would succeed in this case.

:smallannoyed:

Jasdoif
2007-09-11, 07:59 PM
Fax, while I like your points past the first ones, I have to question your choice of definitions. I do appreciate the value of precise terms, but [MDSV]AD is too much.

So, let me put forth my definitions, in the hope it's of some use.


I consider SAD to be having a single stat be significant to a class, while MAD is having three or more stats significant to a class. What you call "DAD" is actually the standard case and doesn't normally need a term, and "VAD" suggests there isn't an attribute dependency at all. For the sake of discussion I'll give a definition for what makes a stat significant: Mechanically significant class features that either get a direct modifier to a roll based on the stat, or a mechanically significant class features that can't be fully utilized with a score of under 15.

Things like hit points and Dexterity to AC don't count, because they aren't class features (more generally, they apply regardless of your class, so they're "standard issue" as far as classes go).


Now, some examples:


A Barbarian is standard (relies on two stats). Rage duration is directly influenced by Constitution, and as rage puts a bonus on Strength having a high natural Strength helps make use of it. A bard is SAD: Charisma 16 is required to access all spells, determines spell save DCs, and applies to the Perform-check-intensive bardic music. While Bardic Knowledge benefits from Int, it has little mechanical use and thus doesn't count.

A monk is also standard (relies on two stats). The unarmed damage, flurry of blows, and two of the bonus feats lean the class heavily towards melee combat, which benefits from Strength; while the AC bonus, quivering palm and special use of Stunning Fist all benefit from Wisdom.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-11, 08:21 PM
Dex to AC is not really standard. There are classes that rely on it, and classes that can take it or leave it. Any heavy-armored character doesn't really need dexterity. It might be worthwhile for them to eventually hit a +3 modifier, but by then they can afford at least a +4 item since they only got up to wanting +3 when they went to mithril full plate. Arcanists have problems getting decent AC without high dex, but they generally aren't supposed to rely on AC anyway. Poorly armored melee combatants, which monks are the grand exemplar of, are going to be subject to attack rolls and won't have the AC to survive it unless they have a dexterity bonus to make up for it. The full plate a monk isn't wearing is worth 8 AC, plus enhancements. The monk can get the enhancements too...but to match the AC of the man in the plate, they need a combined dex and wis bonus of 8. Or 9, if the plated fellow has a mere 12 dexterity.

Dexterity doesn't activate a specific class feature, but it is specifically mandated by the monk's bundle of class features.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 08:23 PM
I already presented contradictions. ...but they were not done within your proof, which makes them irrelevant to it. A proof is a neat, self-contained logical construct--if that is not the case with a particular argument, it is not a proof, but rather an attempt at persuasion.
Further, even if it was the weak form of reductio ad absurdum, the opponent has to actually accept the supposedly ridiculous conclusion as true in order for his argument to continue to be valid, which Fax did not. So, even a weak reductio ad absurdum would succeed in this case. It would be a successful proof if, and only if, it were not based on an appeal to ridicule--that appeal is a logical fallacy. If it was found persuasive, that means it was a good persuasion, not necessarily a good proof.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 08:28 PM
It would be a successful proof if, and only if, it were not based on an appeal to ridicule--that appeal is a logical fallacy.

Look up what an appeal to ridicule actually is. I didn't use one.

This is what appeal to ridicule actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Jasdoif
2007-09-11, 08:40 PM
The full plate a monk isn't wearing is worth 8 AC, plus enhancements. The monk can get the enhancements too...but to match the AC of the man in the plate, they need a combined dex and wis bonus of 8. Or 9, if the plated fellow has a mere 12 dexterity.

Dexterity doesn't activate a specific class feature, but it is specifically mandated by the monk's bundle of class features.You make good points. But the thing is that any other class could make use of the same Dexterity to AC. Even a Commoner, the bottom line of classes, could get the same bonus with the same Dexterity score.

A monk doesn't derive any extra benefit from Dex to AC from its class; it's that the monk's AC substitute for armor is simply too pathetic to stand on its own.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 08:41 PM
Look up what an appeal to ridicule is. I didn't use one.

This is what appeal to ridicule actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule ...earlier...
So if I was the designer and I just say "The monk isn't intended to be a combatant," then he'd not be MAD. You don't see a problem with that? ...and your definition...
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way Yes, you did use this technique, to a T in fact, although I do not believe it was your intent. I think you honestly did intend to present an reductio ad absurdum, and simply did not present it properly, so this is not an accusation of ill intent, merely a statement that you did not present the formal proof you believed you were presenting.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 08:45 PM
So if I was the designer and I just say "The monk isn't intended to be a combatant," then he'd not be MAD.

That's a fact. It's a situation allowed by the premise presented by Fax Celestis. He stated that designer intent decided whether the Cleric was MAD or not. That means that if the designer intended for the Cleric to be a combatant, then he's MAD, and if he wasn't, then he's not. This same logic can be applied to any other class, so I presented a hypothetical that he could not agree with based on his own logic. If he doesn't accept the result of his own statement to be true, then he violates the law of non-contradiction.


Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe an argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. However, this is a weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion. Such arguments can also commonly incorporate the appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy caused when an argument or theory is twisted by the opposing side to appear ridiculous If the decision is accepted as absurd, then the argument succeeds.

That is not an argument by ridicule. It's reductio ad absurdum. An argument by ridicule is more like "What are you, like, 10? Only kids believe in that," or "If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!" It doesn't actually take a logical extrapolation from the person's argument that demonstrates it to be illogical.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 08:52 PM
That's a fact. It's a situation allowed by the premise presented by Fax Celestis. It is NOT an argument by ridicule. Your perception that it is a situation allowed by his premise is not relevant to whether or not it was designed to highlight a counter-intuitive aspect of his premise to make it appear contrary to common sense. Nor does it change that you demonstrated his premise' logic in an absurd and overly-simplified way. Those things make it an argument by ridicule, not a reductio ad absurdum proof, and it is utterly irrelevant that you believe it to be a situation allowed by his premise--in fact, that only serves to confirm that the fallacy was in place.

Edit: you have, once again, changed your post dramatically between its initial posting and its reply. I will leave my initial response up, but add something in an attempt to address one of your changes, and leave the rest as-is.
An argument by ridicule is more like "What are you, like, 10? Only kids believe in that." That is not true per the wiki page you used for your definition. These are also examples of an appeal to ridicule that do not challenge one's maturity: If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy! If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla! These are, much as you agree that your statement was, situations allowed by the premise presented. However, they both highlight a counter-intuitive aspect of the premise to make it appear contrary to common sense and demonstrate the premise' logic in an absurd and overly-simplified way. They are textbook cases of an appeal to ridicule, much as your statement is a perfect specimen.

Edit #2: There was yet another large set of changes to the post to which I am responding, but addressing them in kind would make this entire process overly complicated.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 08:59 PM
Your perception that it is a situation allowed by his premise is not relevant to whether or not it was designed to highlight a counter-intuitive aspect of his premise to make it appear contrary to common sense. Uhm, you do realize that is only part of the qualifier, right? A true reductio ad absurdum does the exact same thing. An appeal to ridicule just appeals to the emotions of the observer, rather than actually presenting a logical reason why it's absurd.

I don't think you quite understand that concept of the fallacy, and just looked it up on the internet instead of actually taking a course in logic or ever being part of formal debates :smallwink:


That is not true per the wiki page you used for your definition. Actually, it follows a specific example on the wiki page,
Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up.

This only reinforces the notion that you misinterpret what the fallacy means.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 09:01 PM
An appeal to ridicule just appeals to the emotions of the observer, rather than actually presenting a logical reason why it's absurd. Nor did you present a logical reason why your counterpoint was absurd, you simply expected the reader to feel that it was absurd. Textbook case.

Actually, it follows a specific example on the wiki page ...which the wiki says is sometimes used, not an inherent part of the fallacy itself.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 09:03 PM
((Gaaaah, double post...))

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 09:04 PM
...which the wiki says is sometimes used, not an inherent part of the fallacy itself.

It actually does not say this. What it actually says on the subject matter is:

Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging ones immaturity;

* Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up.

The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.

Nothing about "not being an inherent part of the fallacy." Indeed, if it weren't a part of the fallacy, there would be no need for mention of this usage in the article.


Nor did you present a logical reason why your counterpoint was absurd, you simply expected the reader to feel that it was absurd.

Actually, I did present a logical reason why the point was absurd. Repeatedly. I even pointed it out when I was arguing with you about this. So now you're just making outright false claims. You could contend that my reason wasn't actually logical, but you're not doing that. You're just saying that my statements don't exist (which is clearly illogical.)

The point is absurd because the simple belief by someone somewhere that the class should fill some role does not actually make it unsuitable for other roles. In fact, it doesn't change the way the class behaves at all. If I believed the Monk wasn't a combatant, that wouldn't stop him from fitting into the combatant role. This isn't going to be any less true if I'm the designer of the monk class. Thus, intending for a class not to rely on an attribute doesn't actually make the class rely on the attribute any less. And again, even if you were to claim this were a weak example of the argument, it still succeeds if the opponent does not accept the absurd situation as true.

I know my logic, and all I can tell you is quoted for me on wikipedia:


Although they appear very similar, this fallacy should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid type of logical argument.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 09:12 PM
The point is absurd because the simple belief by someone somewhere that the class should fill some role does not actually make it unsuitable for other roles. In fact, it doesn't change the way the class behaves at all. If I believed the Monk wasn't a combatant, that wouldn't stop him from fitting into the combatant role. This isn't going to be any less true if I'm the designer of the monk class. While you may have intended for all that stuff you said above to be part of your proof, this is your original statement:
So if I was the designer and I just say "The monk isn't intended to be a combatant," then he'd not be MAD. You don't see a problem with that? ...which does not include any of those elements. You may have, over the course of several replies and edits, constructed what you believe to be a valid reductio ad absurdum, but what I quoted and have been discussing is a clear appeal to ridicule.

Edit: while there were several edits which changed the above post, I will leave my reply as-is and hope it suffices to make my point.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 09:16 PM
...which does not include any of those elements. Actually, it's pretty implicit. When I say "you can't see a problem with that?" that's asking the reader to connect the dots for himself. I present the situation needed to present the reductio ad absurdum, and ask the reader to actually take 2 seconds of thought to come to the conclusion for himself. That doesn't do anything at all to make it a fallacy (again, I think you completely miss what that *is*, since you keep talking about proofs and thinking that it all has to be in one isolated post or else it's a fallacy, which is way, WAY off. If doing that was a fallacy, you'd better go ahead and tell Socrates he can't do a lick of basic logic.)

I really don't want to explain this to you, though, because it's going really off topic. Go take a logic class.

Edit: Oh yeah, and what do you know, it looks like you didn't quote my post entirely. I also presented a contradiction in the same post, saying:



Additionally, by that definition, EVERY class intended for a melee role is MAD, always, because "he is not as good at what he is supposed to do without those abilities." That means the Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Rogue, Cleric, Favored Soul (both have been said to have been intended to have some melee power), Duskblade, Hexblade, Ranger, Paladin, and so forth are *ALL* MAD. EVERY full BAB class is MAD. Half the medium BAB ones are too. This presents a contradiction with the notion that they are actually distinct classifications, such as VAD, DAD, and so forth. I really wish you would stop pretending statements I've made, you know, didn't exist. When they clearly do.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 10:07 PM
I forgot to mention before that I enjoyed your post as usual Fax :smallsmile:

I've been meaning to ask how DAD works out for favored souls and the like, since the last time I played a favored soul, it was house ruled to be SAD (Charisma).

Someone said (I think twice) that 3.0 Psions are terrible offenders of MAD, unless I read it wrong, they're the very embodiment of VAD since they need ONE high score in any ability. As you pick your primary discipline, and that dictates the ability score that you need to put points in.

Someone else (I'm sick and don't feel like looking and quoting multiple people, sorry) that "Grapplemancers" exist who want Strength. That's akin to someone saying "My Enchant Sorceress uses Dex instead of Energy and relies on casting enchant on herself then unloading arrows." That's well and good, but that's one obscure build, the majority of (non-gish) wizards don't give a boop about their strength score.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 10:28 PM
Someone said (I think twice) that 3.0 Psions are terrible offenders of MAD, unless I read it wrong, they're the very embodiment of VAD since they need ONE high score in any ability. As you pick your primary discipline, and that dictates the ability score that you need to put points in. Each discipline used a different ability score to determine the level of power you could access. For a Psion to have the same degree of spell/power access as a Wizard with 19 Intelligence or a Cleric with 19 Wisdom, he would need to have a 19 in every single ability score. The 3.0 Psion was actually used to define MAD on the WotC boards, several years back. The dictionary is still up as a sticky, check it out.

It was probably intended to work by VAD--although I don't think the term existed at the time--but in practice it generally ended up with the worst case of MAD to date at mid-to-high levels.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 10:36 PM
Each discipline used a different ability score to determine the level of power you could access. For a Psion to have the same degree of spell/power access as a Wizard with 19 Intelligence or a Cleric with 19 Wisdom, he would need to have a 19 in every single ability score. The 3.0 Psion was actually used to define MAD on the WotC boards, several years back. The dictionary is still up as a sticky, check it out.

It was probably intended to work by VAD--although I don't think the term existed at the time--but in practice it generally ended up with the worst case of MAD to date at mid-to-high levels.

So then yes, I read it wrong.

tainsouvra
2007-09-11, 10:39 PM
So then yes, I read it wrong. It happens to the best of us.
It doesn't help that the 3.0 book didn't make a lot of sense after the editors were through with it, so much so that Bruce Cordell (the author of the pre-editor-abuse version) couldn't even make some parts work as intended...if even the author is getting things mixed up, you really shouldn't worry if you did too :smallbiggrin:

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 10:41 PM
It happens to the best of us.
It doesn't help that the 3.0 book didn't make a lot of sense after the editors were through with it, so much so that Bruce Cordell (the author of the pre-editor-abuse version) couldn't even make some parts work as intended...if even the author is getting things mixed up, you really shouldn't worry if you did too :smallbiggrin:

I played a 3.0 Psion the way I read it, and it wasn't that bad.. except Kineticists, Constitution is a terribly unfair SAD stat.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-11, 10:56 PM
(and indeed, it makes it harder to accurately describe these things, since the attributes you want tend to vary by build. For example, a ray-jockey Wizard might want to make sure his Dex is high, possibly even more than his Int!)

Okay, I've taken issue with your comments throughout the entire thread, and I can't stay silent anymore.

Lets get off formal debate/logic. This is an internet forum, afterall, and not all of us have taken classes.

If I understand your argument correctly, it is:

If Monks are MAD, because they generally require Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, and Wisdom;

So do Clerics, because they generally require Strength, Constitution, Wisdom and Charisma.

The key word here is "require", and it's providing all the tense discussion.

Fax's argument states that, in the typical party role, the Cleric requires Wisdom and Charisma, for Casting and Healing. I'm not saying it's the universal party role, as you have Czillas out there, but it is considered by most to be the intended party role of the Cleric (you can disagree, that's cool).

In the same vein, the typical party role of the Monk is to be a melee combatant. For this, a Monk requires Strength (to a lesser degree Constitution), and Dexterity: If it wants to get by on a 14 AC. Monks can't wear armour, so they also require Wisdom to keep their AC high (especially if they have a low Constitution), and to effectively fill their party role.

A Cleric is made better by Strength and Constitution, certainly. The Cleric, however, can focus on two general directions: High Strength/Constitution, lower Wisdom and Charisma: That'll give you a melee cleric who probably uses buffing spells to improve the bashing. High Wisdom/Charisma, lower Strength/Constitution: That'll get you a more spell and turning oriented Cleric.

The Monk never really gets that choice. You might be able to get away with making a Dexterity/Wisdom skill monkey, but that'll ignore the obvious melee intentions of Flurry of Blows, unarmed strike, and the like. Not to mention the fact that you'll be completely outclassed in being a skill-monkey by any rogue with intelligence higher than 8.

The monk suffers because of one thing: Poor design. Part of that poor design is reflected in the fact that it needs 3 or 4 high stats to perform effectively as the melee combatant it's fairly obviously intended to be.

The Cleric can wear heavy armour, and ignores Dexterity. Heck, the Cleric can avoid combat and ignore Strength and Constitution too. The Cleric is made better with high stats in those areas, but isn't neutered like the Monk.

Please inform me if I offend, it's not my intention.

Starsinger
2007-09-11, 11:05 PM
The Cleric can wear heavy armour, and ignores Dexterity. Heck, the Cleric can avoid combat and ignore Strength and Constitution too. The Cleric is made better with high stats in those areas, but isn't neutered like the Monk.

Please inform me if I offend, it's not my intention.

Not to mention, the Cleric, with 18 Wis, 18 Cha, and 8s everywhere else can buff himself, which the monk cannot do. Divine Power, Righteous Might, Wombat's Endurance, Wombat's Strength, Shield of Faith, etc. etc. Suddenly, the Cleric is capable of becoming a melee character.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-11, 11:09 PM
You make good points. But the thing is that any other class could make use of the same Dexterity to AC. Even a Commoner, the bottom line of classes, could get the same bonus with the same Dexterity score.

A monk doesn't derive any extra benefit from Dex to AC from its class; it's that the monk's AC substitute for armor is simply too pathetic to stand on its own.
Not entirely true, since the other class...particularly, the other class that engages at melee range...is likely to be using armor that suppresses that bonus. Even light armor users have a cap that they are likely to hit (but unlikely to dump their armor for) at 22 dex in a mithril chain shirt or 20 in a mithril breastplate, which a monk of sufficient pointbuy might well eventually exceed. While technically anyone can get the same benefit from dex-to-AC, in practice it is often precluded by efficient use of class features that the monk doesn't get.
...er, kind of a quibble.

Your point is valid. But I'd consider 'unable to function without it' to trump 'not a component of class features' in defining dependency.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-11, 11:13 PM
The key word here is "require", and it's providing all the tense discussion. See, I contend that the Monk doesn't "require" all these stats because he's MAD, but because he, you know, sucks. And he'll still suck even if you roll all those stats high compared to other choices. And again, *all* melee classes what the three physical stats. The ToB classes actually want all those *and* a mental stat. Despite that, they've been called VAD. If everyone's qualifyin' as both, why make the distinction and load on the acronyms?

If I rebalanced the Monk and kept his MAD, just like I did with the Rebalanced Paladin, then he'd be just like any other Tome of Battle class (4 stats you care about)

Jasdoif
2007-09-11, 11:27 PM
Not entirely true, since the other class...particularly, the other class that engages at melee range...is likely to be using armor that suppresses that bonus. Even light armor users have a cap that they are likely to hit (but unlikely to dump their armor for) at 22 dex in a mithril chain shirt or 20 in a mithril breastplate, which a monk of sufficient pointbuy might well eventually exceed. While technically anyone can get the same benefit from dex-to-AC, in practice it is often precluded by efficient use of class features that the monk doesn't get.
...er, kind of a quibble.

Your point is valid. But I'd consider 'unable to function without it' to trump 'not a component of class features' in defining dependency.I see...looks like "dependency" isn't the right term for the definition I'm using.

I'm going for a "attribute needed to make this class better then other classes" theme, which is centered around attributes that contribute noticeably to class features, rather then attributes needed to "bandage" shortcomings in unassociated (in terms of ability modifiers) class features.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-12, 01:16 AM
But if you want a better example of a class with MAD, I'm afraid I don't have one: the Monk is by far the worst offender of MAD in the game

I would say that paladin is a much worse offender, since the monk isn't MAD, its Dual Attribute Dependent, by your definition. A monk can match +5 fullplate/+5shield off of just his class defense bonus and a pumped up wisdom score, and bracers of armor. With Insightful strike, he isn't sacrificing his to-hit by pumping Wisdom exclusively. Then you focus on meta-stunning fist feats with your high Save DCs, and pump Intelligence to make up for the fact that monks don't get enough skill points. A 13 strength for power attack is also useful, as is a a reasonable Con, but these aren't really dependencies, just nice to have.


*+12 wisdom modifier, +4 class bonus vs. +13armor +7shield. The monk needs a +4 bracers of armor to be even.

Miles Invictus
2007-09-12, 02:31 AM
Skjald: Unless the Monk has 18s in both Dex and Wisdom, he spends roughly three times as much as the shield-and-full-plate fighter to get an equitable AC. It doesn't help your case that much of that gold is spend on stat-boosting gear.

The reason the Monk is MAD is because he is reliant on so many different stats to fulfill his established role, that of a melee combatant. (Since a number of his signature features, such as Flurry and AC bonus, contribute directly to combat, I figure it's safe to assume he's supposed to fight melee.)

Monks need Strength to inflict bonus damage. They need Dexterity to boost their unarmored AC (or their Finesse attack bonus). They need Constitution to raise their sub-par hit die. And they need Wisdom to further boost their unarmed AC and affect a few high-level class features.

Yes, you can argue that Finesse reduces the need for a high Strength...but the Monk is still doing less damage with his high number of attacks. Without Strength, the Monk is doing an average of ten damage per attack at 20th level. A Greatsword-wielding fighter can get an average of ten damage per attack at 1st level, with a strength score of 14. Flurry compensates somewhat...but you roll separately for each attack, and DR applies separately as well, so it's not the huge bonus it appears to be.

You could also argue that the Monk's high AC removes the need for Constitution...but consider that a Fighter has a higher base attack bonus and a larger hit die, and he only had to spend a third as much as the Monk to get the same AC. The Fighter will hit the Monk, and he will do heavy damage.

Meanwhile, however, a class like the Fighter only needs to boost Strength and Constitution -- if they're focusing on melee -- or Dexterity -- if they're focusing on ranged combat. With point-buy, they can afford to purchase higher ability scores, because they only need one or two to be effective in their role. With rolled stats, they can place their points roughly wherever they want.

The Monk's attribute dependency could be reduced significantly if the Monk's abilities functioned in light armor. (To balance, max Dex bonus would apply to Wisdom as well.) This allows the Wisdom bonus to be, well, a bonus, instead of another requirement. If the Monk also had a d10 hit die, it would be about on the same level as the fighter -- Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are all helpful, but the character doesn't need high values in all of them.

I would argue that the Paladin straddles the line between MAD and VAD. He's a frontline fighter, so he needs a high Strength and Constitution. He needs Charisma, too, since it fuels so many of his class features. However, he's not quite as depended on Str and Con as most frontliners, because some of his class features compensate somewhat. Wisdom is nice, but it's not necessary -- spellcasting is a nice perk, but the Paladin isn't a strong caster like the Cleric.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-12, 02:40 AM
I have a dex of 10 in that build, using Insightful Strike (wisdom to hit with simple weapons). The fact I am spending money pumping my Wisdom sky-high doesn't change the fact that Monk isn't MAD.

The above post is leaning into a Monks do/don't suck debate. i get it, monks weren't done right, swordsage is better in every way. But all I'm saying is that MAD monks are a misconception.

All I need with that build is a really high wisdom. I don't need intelligence or constitution any more than a rogue does. I'm focusing on meta-stunning fist feats, so I don't need high damage, just enough to deal at least 1pt. to use my [input X feat here, stunning fist at low level, freezing the lifeblood at high level].

Also, if I don't want all-but-4 of my AC to be flat-footed-touch, I can get an additional +2-3 AC out of bigger Bracers of armor, which is MUCH cheaper than wish spells to boost my wisdom by 5. Which leaves me buying a +7 Bracers of Armor and a +6 stat item. The fighter's going to be buying a +6 stat item as well, most likely.

49,000 for +7 bracers of armor, 50,000 for two +5 armor items. I win on cost too (barely).

*in this case I have only a +9 wisdom modifier into AC, but a +7 armor and +4 class. (+21 vs. heavy armor guy's +13 armor +7 shield (+20)).

excrtd
2007-09-12, 03:28 AM
I am having difficulty locating this Insightful Strike feat. So what book is it in?

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-12, 03:37 AM
It sounds like Intuitive Attack from BoED. An exalted feat.

excrtd
2007-09-12, 03:41 AM
It does sound like it but I want to be sure since Intuitive Attack is an exalted feat and that would change my view of the argument considerably.

lord_khaine
2007-09-12, 06:21 AM
and it makes me MAD that people keeps bashing monks just because they cant build a proper one, being generaly weaker than a cleric is hardly a proof of another class sucking.

besides that, i would also disgaree about wizards only needing int, if you actualy want to adventure with a d4 hp a decent con is almost a requirement unless you seek a early peek of elysium.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-12, 07:19 AM
and it makes me MAD that people keeps bashing monks just because they cant build a proper one, being generaly weaker than a cleric is hardly a proof of another class sucking.

I agree, a monk can totally kick a samurai's ass. [/sarcasm]

Kioran
2007-09-12, 07:24 AM
This all is very much a question of HD-effects versus Class Features: your Ability Scores fuel your class features, but also your HD-effects.

HD-effects: BAB, Saves, HP, Feats and Skillz. In short, everything that would be available simply thorugh HD advancement, and doesnīt rely on anything else. Most important: Saves, Skillz and BAB. The size of the HD is not entirely unimportant, but secondary.
Abilities influence HD effects differently - the most important being con, where a single point of Con Bonus means an increase by an entire die size, the reason why the size of the original die doesnīt matter much. This is followed by Int, which isnīt quite as useful though - if you donīt have much skill points originally, you probably have a sucky list of class skills anyway, and if you have Skill points, you can get by without pumping your Int. To boot, it doesnīt even work retroactively, like Con. The others give powerful, but singular bonuses to your effective stats.

Class Features: Evasion, Spellcasting, Turn Undead, Maneuvers, Stances, Sneak attack etc. , in short, everything that requires lvls of specific classes.

The Fighter is the only class who has no class Features whatsoever - he has what Iīd call "amplified HD-Effects" by getting decent(though by no means stellar - Barb and Ranger are better in core, Duskblade is better etc.) HD and a boatload of Feats. He is, by and large VAD - he needs Con(for soaking damage) and either Dex or Str(to hit anything) + an optional Int to pick the right Feats.
A Monk has some class features, powered by wis, has nice HD (the second best in core - I consider Ranger superior, but not by much) but thatīs about it - Most of his class Features have no large impact on combat besides making him hard to kill with magic effects.
A Paladin, who is only marginally better than a Fighter and requires good Char to actually be that way.

Take, on the other hand, the rouge - no matter how bad his Abilities, and thus the HD-effects, he still has sneak attack and enough skills to go by.
Or the wizard - as long as he can cast spells, all is well.
Or the Cleric, buffing and casting his way to heaven.
Or the Martial adept, whoīs maneuver-bonus doesnīt get weaker if he has less strength.

The discrimination? The latter classes mostly rely on class Features with unique effects, which can not be replicated by HD-effects. A Fight 10 is not too differen from a Warrior 15, while a Rogue 10 can do things an Expert 15 can only dream of - Evasion, Sneak attacking, Uncanny Dodge etc.
The Monk might have some unique powers at higher lvls, but can for the most part, not do anything in combat a high level NPC-Class couldnīt (for example hitting stuff, making his saves etc.), because all his most powerful moves are severely limited in use or duration
It all comes down to what Leeky windstaff said: "My class has special abilities more powerful than your entire class". Itīs what the Wizard or Rogue tell the Monk. Itīs also what the Warblade tells the Fighter. Unless you need multiple stats to power these Abilities (like the Favored Soul), you are less MAD, because you donīt need HD-effects.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-12, 08:00 AM
If I rebalanced the Monk and kept his MAD, just like I did with the Rebalanced Paladin, then he'd be just like any other Tome of Battle class (4 stats you care about)

I think there's a distinction between having four stats you care about, and four stats you require. I'm playing a reasonably successful Swordsage on Dex 18, Int 16, Wis 16, Str 10, Con 12 (and Cha 13, but that's unrelated).

Two of my three physical stats, that, according to you, I "want" to be a swordsage, I don't need. Nor is that achieved by esoteric feats that I hadn't ever heard of before. He plays a role similar to that of a ranger, secondary fighter and secondary skillmonkey.

The monk, as has been stated many times before, has a really hard time getting away with not having high statistics in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. You posit that it's because the class sucks, not because of MAD.

I'd partially agree. I'd definitely agree that the class sucks, and that MAD isn't all that there is to it, but I'd argue that MAD plays a part in the suckiness of the class.

lord_khaine
2007-09-12, 08:09 AM
A Monk has some class features, powered by wis, has nice HD (the second best in core - I consider Ranger superior, but not by much) but thatīs about it - Most of his class Features have no large impact on combat besides making him hard to kill with magic effects

thats not quite true, i do agree on that quite a lot of his features makes him harder to kill, as if that were a bad thing?
but he also have a lot of features that can be used offensively, like stunning attacks, good mobility and nasty grapple damage.


It all comes down to what Leeky windstaff said: "My class has special abilities more powerful than your entire class". Itīs what the Wizard or druid tell the Monk. Itīs also what the Warblade tells the Fighter. Unless you need multiple stats to power these Abilities (like the Favored Soul), you are less MAD, because you donīt need HD-effects

fixed that part for you, noone is disagreing that being a full caster rocks, but the rogue isnt as such stronger than the monk.


The monk, as has been stated many times before, has a really hard time getting away with not having high statistics in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. You posit that it's because the class sucks, not because of MAD

thats something that has been claimed a lot of times, but the case is the monk can do fine with mostly str and con, and to a lesser degree wis.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-12, 08:13 AM
thats something that has been claimed a lot of times, but the case is the monk can do fine with mostly str and con, and to a lesser degree wis.

Can't agree with you there. The AC lost by not focusing on Dex or Wisdom is likely to be devastating at any level. The HP isn't that great, even with a high Con.

Kioran
2007-09-12, 08:18 AM
I think there's a distinction between having four stats you care about, and four stats you require. I'm playing a reasonably successful Swordsage on Dex 18, Int 16, Wis 16, Str 10, Con 12 (and Cha 13, but that's unrelated).

Two of my three physical stats, that, according to you, I "want" to be a swordsage, I don't need. Nor is that achieved by esoteric feats that I hadn't ever heard of before. He plays a role similar to that of a ranger, secondary fighter and secondary skillmonkey.

While these Abilities are a faaar cry from being bad (47 Point buy!!!!), they donīt matter all that much. Your class dervies the major portion of itīs combat abilities from a class feature that doesnīt rely on your abilities at all. Your Diamond mind strikes, for example, will do more bonus damage than any strength score ever could....
Thatīs the difference between Monk and Swordsage - not the better HD (2 Skill points), but the fact that you can attack with a class feature that is a lot more powerful than anything the mok could come up with and use more than a few times per day(or week -> quivering palm).

Your abilities are just a bonus to the huge cunk of power your maneuvers represent, while a monk depends on actually hitting with unmodifed attacks.

Kioran
2007-09-12, 08:24 AM
thats not quite true, i do agree on that quite a lot of his features makes him harder to kill, as if that were a bad thing?
but he also have a lot of features that can be used offensively, like stunning attacks, good mobility and nasty grapple damage.

Stunning: limited daily uses, avoidable by Fortitude save. Same for quivering palm. Both are actually quite powerful, but a scarce ressource.
Mobility: One of the monks strongest points, but loses your Full attack and thus the flurry. You canīt normally employ it in a fight. Abundant step would be useful if it were less than a standard action, but it isnīt, totally procluding you from attacking.
Grapple Damage: Offset by sucky BAB, thus requires high Strength - and Wis, since you might want to keep a smidgen of AC before being power-attacked into oblivion.



fixed that part for you, noone is disagreing that being a full caster rocks, but the rogue isnt as such stronger than the monk.

The Rogue has more out-of-combat utility, albeit not by far, but, most of all, outdamages the monk when he can sneak attack. Outdamage him hard.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-12, 09:35 AM
While these Abilities are a faaar cry from being bad (47 Point buy!!!!), they donīt matter all that much. Your class dervies the major portion of itīs combat abilities from a class feature that doesnīt rely on your abilities at all. Your Diamond mind strikes, for example, will do more bonus damage than any strength score ever could....

Fair enough. The example wasn't a great one, but I think my point is still intact. Unlike the Monk, my Swordsage isn't dependent on four abilities (as you say, my Swordsage isn't really dependent on any).

And I hate to say it, but Quivering Palm kinda sucks. The Fort save DC is pretty pathetic compared to Fort save bonuses of things worth using it on. Apart from Wizards, but what Wizard lets a Monk get that shot in anyway?

lord_khaine
2007-09-12, 10:51 AM
Stunning: limited daily uses, avoidable by Fortitude save. Same for quivering palm. Both are actually quite powerful, but a scarce ressource.
Mobility: One of the monks strongest points, but loses your Full attack and thus the flurry. You canīt normally employ it in a fight. Abundant step would be useful if it were less than a standard action, but it isnīt, totally procluding you from attacking.
Grapple Damage: Offset by sucky BAB, thus requires high Strength - and Wis, since you might want to keep a smidgen of AC before being power-attacked into oblivion.


though stunning fist has limitet uses, there is still enough uses of it to count when it matters, and there are lots of opponents whose fort save is bad enough that you might stun them.

im not quite sure what you mean under mobility with not being able to employ it in a fight, if you actualy refer to the monks mobility then you are wrong, i have seen it employed very often, either to get to people who dislike melee combat, or to quickly move to an ally in need of aid.

and yes, grappling requires str, i have never claimed a monk did not need this atribute, but the case is the BAB isnt that sucky again, and offset by improved grapple+flurry of blows.
and for that matter, its usualy quite hard power attack someone who grapples you.

Jasdoif
2007-09-12, 01:26 PM
Oh, almost forgot to say this.

Overall, a great article Fax. While I have issues with your choice of definitions, you've explained them well enough to follow along with; and your use of them is excellent. My own view of attribute dependency was refined after reading this article and some of its commentary. I hope you'll continue writing these articles, they're a good and useful read even if I don't agree with their entirety.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-12, 01:29 PM
Oh, almost forgot to say this.

Overall, a great article Fax. While I have issues with your choice of definitions, you've explained them well enough to follow along with; and your use of them is excellent. My own view of attribute dependency was refined after reading this article and some of its commentary. I hope you'll continue writing these articles, they're a good and useful read even if I don't agree with their entirety.

I don't write them to be right. :smallbiggrin: But thanks.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-12, 01:33 PM
It is a worth a good read, I think. We can debate over what fits in what, or whether something fits in a category, but it's good thinking, I suspect.

The monk issue, I think, is digressing from the topic matter.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-12, 04:53 PM
Two of my three physical stats, that, according to you, I "want" to be a swordsage, I don't need.

You never *need* a stat, unless there's actually a "you can't use your class abilities if your stat is less than X" like with Wizard int. You just want them.


I'd partially agree. I'd definitely agree that the class sucks, and that MAD isn't all that there is to it, but I'd argue that MAD plays a part in the suckiness of the class.

And MAD makes every class weaker. Including the Swordsage. But the Swordsage is actually good enough that he'll live if he doesn't have amazing stats, even though he'd BENEFIT from getting all those other stats (just like the monk benefits from getting all those stats). SAD is always better than MAD from a power angle.

None of that means that you need to make up new acronyms to make the D&D alphabet soup worse and needlessly confusing.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-12, 05:09 PM
I'll just say - another good article, Fax, and once you put a few more of these under your belt, you should compile them together somewhere.

Maybe the Fax Encyclopedius.

Also - I really, really want to love the monk, but he makes it so hard.

(Huh, that's a pretty good unintentional innuendo.)

Fax Celestis
2007-09-12, 05:11 PM
I'll just say - another good article, Fax, and once you put a few more of these under your belt, you should compile them together somewhere.

Maybe the Fax Encyclopedius.

Also - I really, really want to love the monk, but he makes it so hard.

(Huh, that's a pretty good unintentional innuendo.)

Perhaps there, (http://corporation.walagata.com) perhaps elsewhere. (http://faxcelestis.net/)

Bassetking
2007-09-12, 10:02 PM
It is a worth a good read, I think. We can debate over what fits in what, or whether something fits in a category, but it's good thinking, I suspect.

The monk issue, I think, is digressing from the topic matter.

It's just this week's incarnation of it, Doug. It'll go away in a few days if we don't pick at it.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-12, 10:26 PM
Ah, I do indeed mean Intuitive Attack, not Insightful Strike. meh, so I go the name wrong. And while it is indeed an [Exalted] feat for some reason, it is still an important part of any discussion of monks. Given that it is the only way to make monks at all viable. I have yet to fail at convincing a DM that intuitive attack has no business being an exalted feat, and even if it is, you just get locked into Lawful Good (which makes all monks LG, due to natural selection).

Monks with Intuituve Attack are Single Attribute dependent, ones without are dual attribute dependent (as they suddenly need strength for to-hit). The high dex/weapon finesse monk is a Trap, as you screw yourself on damage for an insignificant amount of AC, and you lack the skill points to be acrobatic and stealthy, which is the only other thing you get from dex. If you want to be acrobatic, stealthy, and hit people for lots of damage with an unarmed strike- Play a rogue with I.U.S.- you'll have the skill points to be acrobatic, and can still deal respectable damage while dex-focused via Weapon Finesse and Sneak Attack.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-13, 12:14 AM
I think the title itself sums up my own objections well enough on its own. "MAD DAD, SAD VAD: WTF?" It causes confusion because it throws in a lot of acronyms that don't really need to be there (and weren't really used much at all before).

Thrawn183
2007-09-13, 09:14 AM
This comparison is wonky. A single +6 item (36,000 gp) exactly matches the cost of
two +4 items (16,000 gp each); and
a single +2 item (4,000 gp)
So let's make a better comparison. With standard point buy, a SAD character beginning with an 18 in their important stat and purchasing a +6 item for that stat has one thing that works very well for them, and some glaring weaknesses. A MAD character beginning with a bunch of 14 stats and purchasing the one +2 and two +4 items will have solid saving throws and few weaknesses, but no single great strength. The SAD character will be all offense and no defense, whereas the MAD character can mix it up and be better suited to a variety of roles.

I think the real point is that the SAD could get a single +4 item and spend the rest of his/her 20,000 gold on... well, anything, while the MAD characterc has to buy the three items mentioned previously to get the same benefit.

To give a counterintuitive example: Paladin get's +2 Charisma item: +1 all saves, and a +2 Dexterity item: +1 AC, +1 Reflex saves. VS. Monk get's +2 Dexterity item: +1 AC and +1 Reflex saves, +2 Wisdom item: +1 AC and +1 Will saves. Paladin: +1 Fort, +2 Ref, +1 Will, +1 AC. Monk: +0 Fort, +1 Ref, +1 Will, +2 AC. This doesn't sound too bad until you take into account that the Paladin is left with more stats to raise for mechanical benefits (ie. he/she can still raise Wisdom for a low price instead of having to jump up to a +4 item.)

This is why classes with a abilities where a single stat effects a great deal of things are so much mechanically more powerful (in principal, I'm not even going to touch spellcasting). The paladin can concentrate on his/her armor and shield until he gets high enough level that a +2 Charisma item is pocket change (even adding it to another item that is already enchanted). The same goes for Hexblades I guess.