Do you think it's better for DnD to encourage MADness or SADness more?

[Man_Over_Game]

For those not familiar with the terms, MADness refers to investing into multiple attributes (like how Monks need DEX, WIS, CON) while SADness refers to investing into singular attributes (like how Rogues only need DEX).

From a design standpoint, DnD 5e is definitely a SAD-focused game. Taking into account something like a weapon attack, increasing a main attribute modifier by 1 results in a 5% increase in your chance to hit (whatever it is), as well as increasing your damage by about 10%, resulting in a net gain of 15.5% when doing that one thing with that one stat. Since you can generally only do one thing at a time, you're rewarded for only investing your resources into that one thing and then limiting your turn to doing that action.

But is that a good thing? Personally, I've always liked the idea of encouraging players to have multiple legitimate options, as this means they're making conscious decisions in each moment and reacting to the world around them, as opposed to a predetermined choice they made based off of the character sheet they printed off 3 sessions ago.

So, to me, action diversity seems better than specialization. When you can do 3 things equally, you're able to add a little bit of your personality to everything. This doesn't quite work all that well in 5e (there're not exactly many great investment choices for Barbarians who want a lot of Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma), especially once you consider the fact that you are still limited to doing one thing each turn and you're generally not limited to how often you do any one thing based on your stats (when you run out of spell slots, it's not like you still can't attack with your Intelligence, right?).

So 5e, in particular, doesn't really offer much for those who like to have an even spread of stats or those that like to dip into many different pies, and generally rewards specializing a lot more, which can end up creating a problem where the game becomes simpler the more experience you get (like how Fighters get more incentive to use Action Surge to attack the higher level they are).

But I also recognize that specializing has the the consequence of being bad at anything you aren't specialized for, causing your niche to become smaller and to have more glaring weaknesses, which I think is assumed to be covered by your allies. By specializing, you rely on your teammates more.


The question is, is that a good thing? I've been mulling over it for a while, and I'm not sure what's more important.

I like the idea of things like the Monk, where you have a bunch of different investment options to make vastly different characters, and none of them are wrong, but is giving players more options a better philosophy than making them only good at doing one thing? There is a faction of players who believe casters are superior based entirely around the concern of having too many buttons to push and not having enough weaknesses for your allies to cover, an issue that could easily be resolved with more focus on specialization.

Or, to put simply, diversifying means more game for the player but less game for the party, while specializing means less game for the player but more game for the party.

What's more important, or what am I missing?

[Xervous]

My viewpoint is heavily informed by adventures in the statistics of other systems, and I say MAD. Multiple dependencies means multiple avenues for investment and specialization. It allows ability scores to be better weighted against one another.

The one thing really standing in the way of a nicer, MADer world is ability score progression. Generate one way, progress another always leads to peculiar investment incentives. If the difficulty of advancing a score was even a bit proportional to how high it already was, the opportunity cost of diverting points from your main shtick wouldn’t be quite as harsh.

[Man_Over_Game]

My viewpoint is heavily informed by adventures in the statistics of other systems, and I say MAD. Multiple dependencies means multiple avenues for investment and specialization. It allows ability scores to be better weighted against one another.

The one thing really standing in the way of a nicer, MADer world is ability score progression. Generate one way, progress another always leads to peculiar investment incentives. If the difficulty of advancing a score was even a bit proportional to how high it already was, the opportunity cost of diverting points from your main shtick wouldn’t be quite as harsh.

I thought about that. An easy solution would be to already have things that you're already leveraging from those other investments. We do this with things like saves or random checks, but that could be expanded on.

For instance, say you had one Action for each stat. A Strength Action, a Dexterity Action, and so on for each turn. You won't think about what you're losing by increasing your Intelligence when the thing you gain is inherently valuable.

As of now, Intelligence Saves are...not all that important. Intelligence checks are...Arcana, Investigation and History, things you probably aren't using unless the DM threw a specific problem at you in the first place. So the reason Intelligence isn't a dump stat for a lot of folks is because it sounds really cool to be smart. I found myself increasing Intelligence in my last character's starting stats just because I envisioned him as being intelligent, not because the system actually did anything with it.

Not saying you're wrong - there very well could be a psychological trend where people are just inclined to specialize regardless of the benefits - I'm just saying that 5e DnD is probably not a good judge of character for that.

As an aside, increasing defensive tools as a means of increasing value for secondary stats is probably not a good solution for it, but neither is straight up making the game more complicated by adding more active actions the more your diversify. In a perfect world, those secondary stats would improve something you're choosing to do each turn without making the game more complicated, but hell if I know how to pull that kinda thing off.

[GeneralVryth]

It's best if both have routes to effectiveness. That way you can have equally effective characters whether they get their power from sheer force of strength or character, versus combining many lesser strengths to achieve the goal. Now that is really tough to balance in practice, which is why I say both should have routes to effectiveness and not every route should be equally effective. An every man trying to go the road usually taken by someone who is strength incarnate should struggle by comparison.

[Angelalex242]

If you want to be smart, you'll play a wizard. If you want to dabble in smart, you'll be an eldritch knight or arcane trickster...both of whom usually prefer headbands of intellect where available so they can be fighters or rogues, mostly.

[Willie the Duck]

But is that a good thing? Personally, I've always liked the idea of encouraging players to have multiple legitimate options, as this means they're making conscious decisions in each moment and reacting to the world around them, as opposed to a predetermined choice they made based off of the character sheet they printed off 3 sessions ago.
...
The question is, is that a good thing? I've been mulling over it for a while, and I'm not sure what's more important. I like the idea of things like the Monk, where you have a bunch of different investment options to make vastly different characters, and none of them are wrong, but is giving players more options a better philosophy than making them only good at doing one thing? The fact that there is a faction of players who believe casters are superior is based entirely around the concern of having too many buttons to push and not having enough weaknesses, an issue that could easily be resolved with more focus on specialization.

What're your thoughts on it?

I don't think there's a specific good or bad thing in isolation. It will depend on the rest of the system and how it interacts with the attributes (especially whether high attributes are nice-to-have or all-but-required for a given context). Personally, I'd be in favor of a theoretical 6th Edition where stats were all-but eliminated from the primary build loops of to-hits and damage, spell DCs, etc., such that build focus could fixate on things other than moving +3s to +4 or +5 (plus so that someone other than a truly dedicated RPer might actually consider a 12 Int wizard or similar RP opportunity).

That said, if stats are going to act as they do in 5e, I think a monk is actually a pretty good example of how MAD can be a problem. While you certainly can make different decisions with a monk, I know a lot of players have a really hard time making an ASI choice other than Wis or Dex, as they are both so vital to a monk being, well, monklike. Reasonably, some feats like Mobility or similar might also be in the mix, but very rarely will a monk take ritual caster or Healer, while I've seen plenty of fighters or wizards doing so.

As to the general issue of making broadly competent characters vs hyper-specialized ones, that seems to happen fairly frequently in games where you get to make 'builds,' particularly if resource X could be spent on enhancing your main tactic or some other aspect (feats in WotC-era D&D, points in GURPS or the like). If you have to spend this resource on attack or spell quality, but this other resource on character breadth quality (which 5e does do with skill allotments, but perhaps not enough other places), then perhaps there would be less of this tendency.

[Damon_Tor]

I would love to see reasons for various characters to invest in what would otherwise be dump stats. I'm thinking feats mostly: if you made some really killer feats for martials which required int 14 or even 16, that would be a cool way to create an incentive for more varied stats.

[MoiMagnus]

First, true SADness doesn't exists in D&D currently, because of Constitution's link to HP and Concentration checks, and in a lesser way Dexterity's link to AC and initiative.

And "fake SADness" is probably the worst place D&D could be.

(1) In favour of true SADness. In a truly SAD system, your main ability score is maxed out, no question asked. But then, you are free. Want some Int, or some Dex? Both are objectively as good as the other since don't have any direct interaction with your class. You can model you ability scores to match the personality of your character, rather than having to consider some optimisation or practicality purposes.

(2) In favour of full MADness. MADness improves the depth of the system. You have multiple different choices at character creations, that will have significant consequences on the gameplay.

IMO, both choices enable a different vision of what character creation should be: Is it the moment where you're doing meaningful choices through a menu of interesting concepts? Or is it the moment where you're materialising the character concept you have in mind, hoping that the system is benevolent enough to have it being a viable character concept?

[Dienekes]

My dream game? Multiple equally viable builds within each class that can focus on all of the attributes.

Want to be a primary Charisma focused Barbarian? Awesome, you pick the Warchief Subclass and your Charisma allows you to give rage bonuses to your allies. Sure you won't be swinging around the great axe and dealing the damage of the Strength Barbarian, but you'll pull your weight.

Want to be a primary Constitution focused Wizard? Neato. Take the Auramancer Subclass and wade into a battle with a bunch of close range and defensive spells that don't rely on Intelligence much at all, but make you a wall roughly equivalent to that of any other tank class.

And so on.

For 5e specifically? I think the game works best with one primary attribute attribute and then a choice between two secondary attributes, probably Con being one of them.

[Stangler]

For a lack of a better term I am definitely pro MAD. I think the main attribute choice is fairly simple and doesn't offer a lot of fun customization. IMO a strength character build should be defined by a combination of a primary stat choice(strength) and a secondary one (dex, int, wis, or cha). I don't consider Con to have a lot of fun customization options.

[Temperjoke]

I think that the group of people who are concerned about MAD or SAD are min-maxers who would still be concerned about what is "best" regardless of what DnD chooses to do. Players are going to be players, and I think it's better for DnD to just make their stuff without thinking too hard on the subject.

[Ertwin]

The best way to get people to go MAD and make more balance characters, is require multiple attributes to contribute to something

If you need both strength AND dexterity for weapon attacks, and say both wisdom AND dexterity for defense, as well as bot strength and constitution for health, and so on. It'll make every stat have value.

NWoD does something like that, and it seems to work well. Everything has multiple stats contirbuting

[DwarfFighter]

Well, looking at the Monk's Unarmored Defense: 10 + Dexterity modifier + Wisdom modifier.

Let's first get this out of the way: This is one of the few instances where a negative modifier will actually hurt your class feature. Mostly you are saved by a "minimum +1" or similar least-level of gain. It seems safe to assume that since you are playing a monk you are going to make use of this class feature. It's a pretty bold step to abandon it, but hey! it's an option! A Monk in plate armor would certainly be unique!

The next think to look at is the potential, and this is where we get tripped up. Unarmored defense can give you AC 20, before you even start adding modifiers from other stuff. But! To get there you need to advance two ability scores quite high. Assuming the standard array, a Monk can reasonably start with 14 and 16 in either Dex or Wis, meaning you need 5 Ability Score Increases to max out, which is going to happen at level 19.

What this tells me is that you need to change how you look at that AC. Consider it open-ended instead of a fixed goal. You need to enjoy the fact that increasing your Wisdom by two also raises your AC by a precious +1 (other classes don't get that!) and not agonize that you're so are away of reaching the goal. Enjoy the growth!

I think the Monk's dependence on multiple attributes makes for a good premise for the class. Sure, Str/Dex translates directly to damage output, so when the Monk is encouraged to bleed off points to his Wisdom, that attribute should come into play with class features and special stuff that brings him up to the level of the single-focus ability score classes.

-DF

[Man_Over_Game]

I think some folks are just reading the title and not the rest of the thread.

The discussion isn't whether any specific class should be MAD or SAD, but the intent is rather about whether specializing or diversifying is better for a TTRPG system.

[Frogreaver]

Neither. It’s better to encourage power come primarily through class and subclass than via stats. I think it would be best if stats primarily offered small flavorful boosts rather than large combat boosts.

Simplest way to accomplish this in d&d would be to tone down the bonus spread to -2 to +2 instead of -5 to +5. Tie the remaining bonus difference into proficiency or into class.

[olskool]

I'm in the Madness camp. Classes SHOULD have more than one primary characteristic (like old AD&D had). I also think that the older [nearly universal] "houserule" for increasing stats in AD&D has some merit for 5e.

In the old AD&D "houserule" system that a huge number of us used, a PC could TRY increase a Stat by ONE POINT at each new Level. To succeed, they needed to declare which Stat that they wanted to improve and then roll a 1D20. They were REQUIRED to add or subtract Racial bonuses or penalties to this D20 roll based on the Stat chosen. IF the roll (adjusted by Racial modifiers) was OVER THE CURRENT SCORE, then that Characteristic was increased by one point. IF the roll was equal to or less than the current Characteristic score, then the PC failed to increase their Stat for that Level. They could roll again upon attaining their next Level. In 5e this would present 20 chances to increase a Characteristic Score but the higher that score is, the less chance you have to succeed at the roll.

[Sorinth]

Personally I'd want them to make all abilities less important and instead a character's skill level (ie Proficiency bonus) would be the main determining factor. The ability scores should have smaller impact.

For example Strength no longer factoring into the + to Hit, but still doing the + to Damage. That way a high strength is still always good to have but you don't have to be Hercules to be a good with a Battleaxe. For Wizards, the spell save is the same for the 18 Int and 14 Int wizard, but it still modifies the number of spells you can prepare so is still valuable.

[KorvinStarmast]

MAD. Make choices meaningful.

[olskool]

Neither. It’s better to encourage power come primarily through class and subclass than via stats. I think it would be best if stats primarily offered small flavorful boosts rather than large combat boosts.

Simplest way to accomplish this in d&d would be to tone down the bonus spread to -2 to +2 instead of -5 to +5. Tie the remaining bonus difference into proficiency or into class.

I agree with this. I also believe in reducing the Proficiency Bonus. Something like:

0-Level = 0
1st thru 2nd Level = +1
3rd thru 5th Level = +2
6th thru 9th Level = +3
10th thru 14th Level = +4
15th thru 20th Level = +5

I would also give 5e Proficiencies the following standards:

Nonproficient = You have a -2 on your roll but you can use a Characteristic Bonus (representing natural talent) to reduce or cancel it.

Basic Proficiency = You have NO penalty but it NEVER improves with your Level either. Characteristic Bonuses (representing Natural Talent) also apply.

Standard [Skill] Proficiency & Martial Proficiency = You may add your Proficiency Bonus (representing advanced training) and your Characteristic Bonuses (representing natural talent).

This would give Martials a slight boost over Non-Martials.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm in the Madness camp. Classes SHOULD have more than one primary characteristic (like old AD&D had). I also think that the older [nearly universal] "houserule" for increasing stats in AD&D has some merit for 5e.

In the old AD&D "houserule" system that a huge number of us used, a PC could TRY increase a Stat by ONE POINT at each new Level. To succeed, they needed to declare which Stat that they wanted to improve and then roll a 1D20. They were REQUIRED to add or subtract Racial bonuses or penalties to this D20 roll based on the Stat chosen. IF the roll (adjusted by Racial modifiers) was OVER THE CURRENT SCORE, then that Characteristic was increased by one point. IF the roll was equal to or less than the current Characteristic score, then the PC failed to increase their Stat for that Level. They could roll again upon attaining their next Level. In 5e this would present 20 chances to increase a Characteristic Score but the higher that score is, the less chance you have to succeed at the roll.

Interesting.

So if we're talking about 20 levels, most folks aren't going to bother to try to raise a stat higher than 16, which means that players will have anywhere between 50% and 20% chance to increase their stats, average that to 35%, 35% of 20 is 7 total attributes, that's still technically more lucrative than 5e's current method of "Everyone gets 3 ASIs for 2 points each", but it'd still be on the weak side since 5e folks can get feats or invest in their chosen stats. It's an interesting method though, and it sounds like it'd work well enough.

[Frogreaver]

Just curious, for the purposes of this thread are wizards sad or mad?

What about rogues?

What about str fighters?

Because every class wants their primary stat and con. Many classes also want some dex on top of that. No one is going to refuse a high wisdom.

I’m just trying to figure out where exactly sad ends and mad begins.

[da newt]

I'm a little ANTI-SAD. I don't like class/subclass/race combos that reward hard core SAD builds. I prefer a build with a significant secondary attribute that matters and creates flavor.

For all PCs a bit of CON and DEX are handy, but they don't tend to define a character. If I had my way, I'd look to create a system where your action is tied to one primary stat, but your BA is tied to a different stat. This (theoretically) would allow every character to have a primary, and then a significant secondary, and in my perfect system the two would be independent so that you could mix and match with no significant synergy driving you toward any one pair over another.

How this would work - I'm not sure, but I think the goal/ideal is easy to understand and should be desirable for most.

[Mitchellnotes]

I think ASIs being used to either increase an ability score or used to obtain a feat is the biggest blessing/curse in 5e. On one hand, it does really simplify character creation. On the other, it encourages SADness to pick up additional feats. MAD vs SAD matters more in 5e because it's not a trade off of "when do i max this ability score vs another" but "how many feats can I pick up with this character while still maxing what i need to max." The other space this is seen is in the movement to shift the racial ability score adjustments. Again, I would argue that this is more relevant in 5e due to the feat tradeoff.

Looking at general character creation, most classes get 4 ASIs. Since, in general, most ability scores can't start higher than 16, that means over a course of a character's career, a character could max 2 ability scores if you don't pick up any feats. With the racial bonuses, this means if you get the right +2, it gives the ability to max it And pick up a feat ASAP if it is a half feat.

However, most feats are pretty good. Even the ones that aren't amazing are still pretty good, and go a long way to making characters feel unique. I think you can see in the design space as 5e has gone on this idea of trying to navigate "feat vs ASI" through pushing the feats that still increase ability scores. In general, people are much more likely to pick up the half-feat than they are of missing out on the ASI.

I would argue that either a free feat (or 2) OR going back and adding a +1 asi to a number of feats that don't have them would go a long way to fixing the concern around MAD or SAD as it would reduce the ASI vs feat dilemma

edited: also, it would boost non-magical characters a little bit as casters really seem to benefit the most from SADness

[olskool]

Interesting.

So if we're talking about 20 levels, most folks aren't going to bother to try to raise a stat higher than 16, which means that players will have anywhere between 50% and 20% chance to increase their stats, average that to 35%, 35% of 20 is 7 total attributes, that's still technically more lucrative than 5e's current method of "Everyone gets 3 ASIs for 2 points each", but it'd still be on the weak side since 5e folks can get feats or invest in their chosen stats. It's an interesting method though, and it sounds like it'd work well enough.

The idea would be to encourage PCs to raise their weakest scores because those are easier to raise. The system was used by so many first and second edition AD&D groups that I'm surprised it didn't become a cannon rule. Of course 2e "threw a wrench" into the system with split Characteristic scores introduced by their "Complete" guides.

[Imbalance]

What's more important, or what am I missing?

Um, story?


I think that the group of people who are concerned about MAD or SAD are min-maxers who would still be concerned about what is "best" regardless of what DnD chooses to do. Players are going to be players, and I think it's better for DnD to just make their stuff without thinking too hard on the subject.

Agreed.

[Pex]

The problem with MAD is the game not letting MAD classes do their Things. Game math matters. Point Buy is zero sum. Obligatory there's nothing wrong with a character being bad at something, but in trying to be good at everything a character is supposed to do he becomes really bad at too many things as a result. Being bad at too many things actively hurts the player and the party as a whole. With dice rolling you at least have a chance. The point isn't to get 18s in all the ability scores you need for your class. Rather it's not to have bad scores in all the ones you don't.

I prefer SAD. Let the character shine in what he is supposed to be doing. That's the whole point feature. He should absolutely be powerful in whatever is his main focus. That does not prevent versatility. SAD only matters when game math matters. Game math matters when a Thing couldn't/shouldn't be autodecided, such as an opposing roll of some kind - to hit someone's AC for your Thing attack or an opponent's saving throw to avoid your Thing attack. You can still do stuff that don't require a roll - non-attack actions taken, significant passive abilities to avoid common gameworld dangers, buff yourself and/or others.

The other ability scores can be whatever the player wants given the established method of getting them. He'll still be good or decent at non-class specific stuff as well as be bad at other non-class specific stuff. He's not good at everything nor bad at everything.

[MoiMagnus]

I think that the group of people who are concerned about MAD or SAD are min-maxers who would still be concerned about what is "best" regardless of what DnD chooses to do. Players are going to be players, and I think it's better for DnD to just make their stuff without thinking too hard on the subject.

Unless your definition of min-maxers is very very broad, I strongly disagree.
You're kind of saying "game design doesn't matter". You don't need to be a min-maxer to be interested about game design, and trying to deconstruct what mechanics of TTRPGs give what incentives, and which better serve the gameplay you want to enable at your table.
In fact, let alone min-maxers, you don't even need to be a player (or GM) to care about this question, and I think that's the peoples you're missing here. The peoples that are interested in game design, and theory-crafting about potentials improvements of a rule system.

[Damon_Tor]

It's relevant to note that non-attribute dependent classes are a thing. Moon druids stand out.

The only TRULY SAD build that exists is a Abberant Dragonmark tortle sorcerer. Cast with CON, no AC to worry about, tanky HP, just one stat and who cares about the rest.

[Temperjoke]

Unless your definition of min-maxers is very very broad, I strongly disagree.
You're kind of saying "game design doesn't matter". You don't need to be a min-maxer to be interested about game design, and trying to deconstruct what mechanics of TTRPGs give what incentives, and which better serve the gameplay you want to enable at your table.
In fact, let alone min-maxers, you don't even need to be a player (or GM) to care about this question, and I think that's the peoples you're missing here. The peoples that are interested in game design, and theory-crafting about potentials improvements of a rule system.

It's not that "game design doesn't matter" its more that, in my experience there will always be people who will focus on making their character SAD-focused, and there will be people who will make their character MAD-focused based on what they want to do with that character no matter what the game design is. And I define min-maxers as people who focus primarily on numbers in a way to maximize their characters, as opposed to just focusing on the characters themselves.

EDIT: To clarify, my position is that DnD should just make things, and not worry about whether people want MAD or SAD characters.

[LordCdrMilitant]

For those not familiar with the terms, MADness refers to investing into multiple attributes (like how Monks need DEX, WIS, CON) while SADness refers to investing into singular attributes (like how Rogues only need DEX).

From a design standpoint, DnD 5e is definitely a SAD-focused game. Taking into account something like a weapon attack, increasing a main attribute modifier by 1 results in a 5% increase in your chance to hit (whatever it is), as well as increasing your damage by about 10%, resulting in a net gain of 15.5% when doing that one thing with that one stat. Since you can generally only do one thing at a time, you're rewarded for only investing your resources into that one thing and then limiting your turn to doing that action.

But is that a good thing? Personally, I've always liked the idea of encouraging players to have multiple legitimate options, as this means they're making conscious decisions in each moment and reacting to the world around them, as opposed to a predetermined choice they made based off of the character sheet they printed off 3 sessions ago.

So, to me, action diversity seems better than specialization. When you can do 3 things equally, you're able to add a little bit of your personality to everything. This doesn't quite work all that well in 5e (there're not exactly many great investment choices for Barbarians who want a lot of Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma), especially once you consider the fact that you are still limited to doing one thing each turn and you're generally not limited to how often you do any one thing based on your stats (when you run out of spell slots, it's not like you still can't attack with your Intelligence, right?).

So 5e, in particular, doesn't really offer much for those who like to have an even spread of stats or those that like to dip into many different pies, and generally rewards specializing a lot more, which can end up creating a problem where the game becomes simpler the more experience you get (like how Fighters get more incentive to use Action Surge to attack the higher level they are).

But I also recognize that specializing has the the consequence of being bad at anything you aren't specialized for, causing your niche to become smaller and to have more glaring weaknesses, which I think is assumed to be covered by your allies. By specializing, you rely on your teammates more.


The question is, is that a good thing? I've been mulling over it for a while, and I'm not sure what's more important.

I like the idea of things like the Monk, where you have a bunch of different investment options to make vastly different characters, and none of them are wrong, but is giving players more options a better philosophy than making them only good at doing one thing? There is a faction of players who believe casters are superior based entirely around the concern of having too many buttons to push and not having enough weaknesses for your allies to cover, an issue that could easily be resolved with more focus on specialization.

Or, to put simply, diversifying means more game for the player but less game for the party, while specializing means less game for the player but more game for the party.

What's more important, or what am I missing?


I used to say MAD. Something something requiring balance between characteristics and limited resources to trade off yadda yadda. But now, I'm going to say without hesitation SAD.

Two MAD characters of the same class will almost almost always wind up being built the same way. This is because they simply don't have the available resources to invest in other things to differentiate themselves. By comparison, a SAD can use the starting second highest ability score and ASI's that would have gone into a MAD character's second main stat to increase their INT or CHA or something, and use the ASI for non-critical flavor-based or fun feats like skill feats and things to make them much more unique.


In essence, a MAD character can always be made more effective by pushing their second or third driving ability towards 20 rather than buying a fun feat or investing in a noncritical nontraditional for the class ability, because the point where increasing investment towards optimality gives diminishing returns is outside the bounds of possibility for the build.
On the other hand, that point is [i]within the bounds of possibility for a SAD class, which means that once that point is reached, the remaining resources can be allocated into true customization.

[Morty]

I think that before "picking" MAD or SAD it's more important to consider two things. First, attribute dependencies should be consistent among classes. Either all classes need one attribute or multiple, but a situation where some of them are one of them while the others the second one isn't ideal. Second, there needs to be variety in how attributes can be applied. Right now, the majority of attribute selection is effectively locked in the moment you pick your class. Here, SAD is generally better - if you need one attribute to do your job, you can spend the rest as you like. Then again, given how everyone needs a little bit of constitution and wisdom, not as much as it'd seem. Either way, assigning attributes should be less of a formality.

[MrStabby]

So generally I prefer MAD systems.

Where this runs into difficulties is with rolled stats. If you roll stats and do better than others at your table in D&D its kind of a bit of an issue, but in 5th edition you cap out at 20 and you hit diminishing returns to the value of any given stat. If the game is more MAD then your diminishing returns kick in a lot later and your better rolled character is substantially better than others at the table for longer... which is as much an issue with rolling, but it a point worth noting.

Generally I don't care so much about MAD or SAD itself but see it as a means to an end. I want more variety, more diverse characters and if the stat system means making meaningful choices about what to give up such that different players would pick different options without being screwed by it, then sure its a better stat system. If it means you are likely to play three rogues or three paladins at the same table and have them feel mechanically very different then that is a good thing. It is more than just more options, but more meaningfully distinct options.

[Rynjin]

The problem with forcing MADness on every character is that it's always going to disproportionately affect martial characters.

Because a martial character is (almost) always going to need all three of Str/Dex/Con and often an additional mental stat for class features, plus a smattering of points in the other mental stats for saves and (in other editions) things like skill points.

Most casters are not truly SAD, but simply have more freedom how to spend their points. As a Wizard, you still want a solid Dex and Con, and could likely do with not outright DUMPING both Cha and Wis. But you have a singular focus stat that is the main thing you need.

This is healthier design, because while it retains a bit of weight to all the stats for every character, it tips the scales a bit more toward a single stat so every character can focus on one thing they're supposed to excel at.

This is why historically characters that could get Dex to damage were so popular in previous editions. Not because Dex it's an OP fighting style, but because it allows more flexibility. If you can cut Str from your build entirely, you have more points to put in your requisite mental stat, Wis, and Con. A Magus goes from being a MAD character who needs Str/Dex/Int (Str for hit/damage, Dex for AC because they're locked to light armor for most levels, Int for casting) to being a "BAD" character who only really needs Dex for hit/damage and Int for casting.

This makes it so someone can feasibly build said character on a 20 point buy without dumping anything. 10/16/14/14/10/10 is a solid statline, and from there you can choose to weaken yourself further in one area (dump Str to 8 for example) to bolster yourself in another (bumping Wis to 12, for example).

Leaning closer to SAD provides more flexibility per character by a wide margin, and leads to more well rounded characters.

Alternately, providing a higher point buy or similar methods of giving large numbers of attribute points to players work too.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just to clarify, for those that didn't read through the first page, the thread isn't necessarily about MAD vs. SAD, but rather what they represent.

One represents diversity, aka The Bard. Being acceptable at more than one thing, so that you always have something to do. The player is always involved, always reading and reacting, but it can come at the cost of potentially overshadowing your allies or having too high of an energy cost on the player.

The other represents specialization, aka The Barbarian. Being great at doing one thing, so that your strengths shine, and so that your weaknesses can be used against you. You rely on your allies more, as they rely on you, but further specialization generally means fewer available decisions and less "game" the more you play.


I think adding more diverse options makes the game better, but more exhausting. It rewards the player, but not the players. It's the Pact of the Chain Warlock who has an invisible, flying familiar who completely overshadows the scouting Ranger in the same party. Sure, he feels cool, but would the table as a whole have less fun if he had a little...less? If the Ranger was a better scout, would the Warlock feel worse?

On the other hand, adding specialization improves teamwork, but at the cost of making the game simpler and more boring. When you want to expand your horizons, and your only option is to tack on more and more limitations to your playstyle, gameplay can stagnate to the point where you have little to look forward to. It's the level 10 Barbarian wondering "When the heck will I ever get to do something that isn't the same melee Attack Action I've done in the last 20 sessions?"


My question is, which is healthier for the game overall?

[Salmon343]

I prefer SAD, if only because I don't really like ability scores at all - and having to only focus on one to actually be good at your class is better than multiple. Generally, MADness restricts creativity, as spreading your ability scores makes you worse at multiple things. You gets a jack of all trades master of none situation, but because D&D is a system with a lot of swingy binary checks (save or suck, missing AC by 1 point results in the same damage as missing it by 10 points - 0 damage), specialisation is rewarded over generalisation.

I'd be all in favour of MAD if the next edition vastly reduced the impact of your ability score on your hit rate, instead improving the quantity of stuff you can do, rather than quality. Stuff like bonus spells, number of uses per short rest of an ability, that kind of thing. 5e already does that quite well, bounded accuracy just makes ability scores way too important for attacks and forcing saves.

[Rynjin]

Just to clarify, for those that didn't read through the first page, the thread isn't necessarily about MAD vs. SAD, but rather what they represent.

One represents diversity, aka The Bard. Being acceptable at more than one thing, so that you always have something to do. The player is always involved, always reading and reacting, but it can come at the cost of potentially overshadowing your allies or having too high of an energy cost on the player.

The other represents specialization, aka The Barbarian. Being great at doing one thing, so that your strengths shine, and so that your weaknesses can be used against you. You rely on your allies more, as they rely on you, but further specialization generally means fewer available decisions and less "game" the more you play.


I think adding more diverse options makes the game better, but more exhausting. It rewards the player, but not the players. It's the Pact of the Chain Warlock who has an invisible, flying familiar who completely overshadows the scouting Ranger in the same party. Sure, he feels cool, but would the table as a whole have less fun if he had a little...less? If the Ranger was a better scout, would the Warlock feel worse?

On the other hand, adding specialization improves teamwork, but at the cost of making the game simpler and more boring. When you want to expand your horizons, and your only option is to tack on more and more limitations to your playstyle, gameplay can stagnate to the point where you have little to look forward to. It's the level 10 Barbarian wondering "When the heck will I ever get to do something that isn't the same melee Attack Action I've done in the last 20 sessions?"


My question is, which is healthier for the game overall?

So...why wasn't this the topic? "Diversity vs specialization" is a completely different thread than "MAD vs SAD". It'd be like me starting up a thread titled "Bagels or Donuts?" and then coming in later to clarify the thread is actually about what your favorite sandwich is.

[Man_Over_Game]

So...why wasn't this the topic? "Diversity vs specialization" is a completely different thread than "MAD vs SAD". It'd be like me starting up a thread titled "Bagels or Donuts?" and then coming in later to clarify the thread is actually about what your favorite sandwich is.

I mean...it is. That's the original post in less words.

[Rynjin]

I mean...it is. That's the original post in less words.

The original post is very focused on exactly what the thread title is about. It's almost entirely focused on attributes, with a single tiny aside in one sentence of the ~4-5 paragraphs you wrote talking about "action diversity":
So, to me, action diversity seems better than specialization. When you can do 3 things equally, you're able to add a little bit of your personality to everything.

If that one sentence was supposed to be the topic, not the subject of attribute diversity, you really buried the lead.

[Theodoxus]

I guess my question is: are you talking about 5E as it is, or 5E as we'd wish it to be, or any version of D&D...

5E as it is, I think the game encourages DADness more. Just because attributes increase, and there are magic items that can take your scrawny butt or dumb self to as strong as a giant or as smart as a high elf with little personal investment.

Every class wants to focus on a single attribute for attacking: Str, Dex, Int, Wis or Cha. Every class wants to focus on a single attribute for defense: Str, Dex, Con, Wis (Int and Cha on very niche builds). Some classes (Str Fighters) only need Strength for both attack and defense. which frees up Con as a secondary attribute for health reasons, so still DAD.

Now, Con becomes problematic, as outside of Strength fighters and Dex Rogues and their true DADness, every other class is actually a TAD. Attack stat: Str (Barbarian, Paladin); Dex (Monk, Ranger); Int (Arcanist, Wizard); Wis (Cleric, Druid) and Cha (Bard, Sorc, 'Lock). Defense stat: Dex (anything not a Monk or Rogue (because attack stat) or using heavy armor (Paladin); Wis (Monk). And health: Con - which everyone outside of niche "fun" builds, will need as much as they're comfortable with.

So, I guess if by MAD you actually mean TAD, then yes, every class outside of Fighters and Rogues are MAD, but none outside of weird builds like unsynergistic multiclasses are truly MAD (4+ attribute dependent).


Now 5E as I wish it to be, would be truly MAD. Int would provide not just a boost to skills, but also grant additional spells to casters. Wis would provide not just a boost to willpower type saves (which would likewise be increased, to encourage boosting Wis) but also grant additional spell slots to casters. Cha would grant both better boons to social situations, but also determine the spell save DC / to hit with spells for spell casters.

As noted above, Str and Con would be averaged out to provide your HP bonus. Dex and Con would be averaged out to provide your AC bonus (and barbarians would use all three (Dex + Con)/2 + Str to determine AC. Dex + Int would be averaged out to provide your Initiative bonus. I'm sure other attributes could be combined for other useful aspects...

[Frogreaver]

Just to clarify, for those that didn't read through the first page, the thread isn't necessarily about MAD vs. SAD, but rather what they represent.

One represents diversity, aka The Bard. Being acceptable at more than one thing, so that you always have something to do. The player is always involved, always reading and reacting, but it can come at the cost of potentially overshadowing your allies or having too high of an energy cost on the player.

The other represents specialization, aka The Barbarian. Being great at doing one thing, so that your strengths shine, and so that your weaknesses can be used against you. You rely on your allies more, as they rely on you, but further specialization generally means fewer available decisions and less "game" the more you play.


I think adding more diverse options makes the game better, but more exhausting. It rewards the player, but not the players. It's the Pact of the Chain Warlock who has an invisible, flying familiar who completely overshadows the scouting Ranger in the same party. Sure, he feels cool, but would the table as a whole have less fun if he had a little...less? If the Ranger was a better scout, would the Warlock feel worse?

On the other hand, adding specialization improves teamwork, but at the cost of making the game simpler and more boring. When you want to expand your horizons, and your only option is to tack on more and more limitations to your playstyle, gameplay can stagnate to the point where you have little to look forward to. It's the level 10 Barbarian wondering "When the heck will I ever get to do something that isn't the same melee Attack Action I've done in the last 20 sessions?"


My question is, which is healthier for the game overall?

Neither is better for the game. That’s why we have both ;)

Different players have different preferences.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm in the Madness camp. Classes SHOULD have more than one primary characteristic (like old AD&D had). I also think that the older [nearly universal] "houserule" for increasing stats in AD&D has some merit for 5e.

In the old AD&D "houserule" system that a huge number of us used, a PC could TRY increase a Stat by ONE POINT at each new Level. To succeed, they needed to declare which Stat that they wanted to improve and then roll a 1D20. They were REQUIRED to add or subtract Racial bonuses or penalties to this D20 roll based on the Stat chosen. IF the roll (adjusted by Racial modifiers) was OVER THE CURRENT SCORE, then that Characteristic was increased by one point. IF the roll was equal to or less than the current Characteristic score, then the PC failed to increase their Stat for that Level. They could roll again upon attaining their next Level. In 5e this would present 20 chances to increase a Characteristic Score but the higher that score is, the less chance you have to succeed at the roll.


The idea would be to encourage PCs to raise their weakest scores because those are easier to raise. The system was used by so many first and second edition AD&D groups that I'm surprised it didn't become a cannon rule. Of course 2e "threw a wrench" into the system with split Characteristic scores introduced by their "Complete" guides.

Are you sure you aren't overestimating the prevalence of this specific house rule? I can't seem to find any evidence of it in any of the primary sources, nor do I remember it from the TSR era USEnet threads. I seem to recall the predominant way of stat-boosting in that era was by modulating the prevalence of wishes and sat-boosting magic items in the campaign.

[Theodoxus]

Are you sure you aren't overestimating the prevalence of this specific house rule? I can't seem to find any evidence of it in any of the primary sources, nor do I remember it from the TSR era USEnet threads. I seem to recall the predominant way of stat-boosting in that era was by modulating the prevalence of wishes and sat-boosting magic items in the campaign.

This is my recollection as well... and Wish sucked for such boosts... Though I like the idea. Perhaps it's a Mandela Effect. If so, I want to go to that universe :smallwink:

[Bosh]

If you want variety in builds without people tanking their character's power or roll in order you kind of want either pretty extreme SAD or MAD. If one ability covers basically everything you need in combat then you have a lot of leeway to take secondary stats in most anything you want. If you need pretty much all the stats to at least some degree there are a lot of ways do divide up the stats.

For some classes 5e D&D hit a kind of uncomfortable midpoint in that they need certain stats so much that unless you want to really tank your character you pretty much HAVE to tank certain stats. And I think that's unfortunate. This is especially bad as some classes are hit with this a lot more than others.

To even things out would like to make casters more MAD. Pretty easy to figure out how. Of course having one stat contribute to saving throw DC is fine, but in older editions high stats could give you more spell slots so easy enough to have one stat give raw power and another stat give you more breadth of magic, also in 3.*ed ranged spell attack rolls were based on dex, not a mental stat so that sniper wizard builds could become a thing again.

Also I don't like how in 5e int is such a "safe" dump stat. You get whole parties where barely anyone has even average intelligence. Would like to see all stats be at least SOMEWHAT painful to dump like how bad initiative hurts every build at least a little so it hurts at least a bit for even a heavy armor character to dump dex completely.

Maybe something along the lines of:
Str: put in a slot-based encumbrance system with actual teeth, have certain spell components for powerful spells take up a spell slot and the same with useful magic items so that dumping str would hurt everyone.
Dex: have casters aim their eldritch blasts or what have you with dex instead of their men
Con: mostly fine as is, wouldn't mind seeing more supplemental abilities tied to con, especially for sorcerers and barbarians.
Int: would like to bring back skills being tied to int. That was a good thing about 3.* so couldn't have stupid skill monkeys.
Wis: fine as is.
Cha: I really like giving the players sidekicks and pets and players tend to love it. I run those characters while the players can give general orders so they don't slow down combat too much. Having the number of pets/sidekicks a player can manage be tied to Cha could work.

Hard to bolt that onto existing 5e without throwing off class balance though.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I'm a little confused now, whether we talk about MAD/SAD or specialists vs generalist classes.

If the first, then it's not about what DnD encourages, it's about how it's designed. MAD classes are not "encouraged", that's just how they are. And if the game has both MAD and SAD classes, then the latter are going to have the advantage, because the available stat points are similar across all the classes. Usually MAD classes aren't "you could build it like this or like that" they are normally "you kinda need both these stats to be good at what are you doing" - i.e. Ranger needs DEX to shoot the bow well, and also WIZ to have good spell save DC, while Wizard just uses single ability score for all the combat math they do.

To this question, I'd say the game probably should be at least somewhat uniform. Either have most or all classes require investment into multiple stats, and thus make it a balancing act, or make it so most abilities are keyed off a single stat for every class. There's also an option to make some classes be able to work off different stats dependent on a build (i.e. DEX fighter vs STR fighter), but that's still a variation of SAD, it's just you can choose what stat you depend on. There's a possibility to have both SAD and MAD classes, but have MAD classes have slightly more powerful abilities, because they are expected to have worse stats overall, but it's kind of a tricky balancing act, and of course rolling for stats has a chance to negate that disadvantage entirely.

As for specialists vs generalists, well first of all MAD/SAD does not necessarily map to generalist/specialist. A SAD class can be a generalist (often spellcasters), and a MAD class can be a specialist (some martials), so it's an entirely different topic. Specialization can lead to more interesting group dynamic, although it has some pitfalls - such as requiring a certain role in the party that nobody wants to fulfill. Too narrow of a specialization might also be too limiting, being unable to perform outside of your role at all, while generalist classes can sometimes fulfill multiple roles, and I'd say in DnD the whole Casters vs Martials often hinges on this issue. Martials are usually specialists, but they are a bit too narrow in their role, while casters are generalists, but they can fill many roles maybe a little too well.

[Kane0]

I tend towards preferring characters with two primary and two secondary stats, so MAD I suppose.

I think the big trick is making classes and subclasses in such a way that multiple different stats are required and desired for multiple different reasons, both for martials and casters.

Like for example, how can you design the Rogue class so that it works with a Dex and Int focused character but also with a Str and Wis focused character, and the same for Wizards with Int and Con or Dex and Cha.

[Salmon343]

If you want variety in builds without people tanking their character's power or roll in order you kind of want either pretty extreme SAD or MAD. If one ability covers basically everything you need in combat then you have a lot of leeway to take secondary stats in most anything you want. If you need pretty much all the stats to at least some degree there are a lot of ways do divide up the stats.

For some classes 5e D&D hit a kind of uncomfortable midpoint in that they need certain stats so much that unless you want to really tank your character you pretty much HAVE to tank certain stats. And I think that's unfortunate. This is especially bad as some classes are hit with this a lot more than others.

To even things out would like to make casters more MAD. Pretty easy to figure out how. Of course having one stat contribute to saving throw DC is fine, but in older editions high stats could give you more spell slots so easy enough to have one stat give raw power and another stat give you more breadth of magic, also in 3.*ed ranged spell attack rolls were based on dex, not a mental stat so that sniper wizard builds could become a thing again.

Also I don't like how in 5e int is such a "safe" dump stat. You get whole parties where barely anyone has even average intelligence. Would like to see all stats be at least SOMEWHAT painful to dump like how bad initiative hurts every build at least a little so it hurts at least a bit for even a heavy armor character to dump dex completely.

Maybe something along the lines of:
Str: put in a slot-based encumbrance system with actual teeth, have certain spell components for powerful spells take up a spell slot and the same with useful magic items so that dumping str would hurt everyone.
Dex: have casters aim their eldritch blasts or what have you with dex instead of their men
Con: mostly fine as is, wouldn't mind seeing more supplemental abilities tied to con, especially for sorcerers and barbarians.
Int: would like to bring back skills being tied to int. That was a good thing about 3.* so couldn't have stupid skill monkeys.
Wis: fine as is.
Cha: I really like giving the players sidekicks and pets and players tend to love it. I run those characters while the players can give general orders so they don't slow down combat too much. Having the number of pets/sidekicks a player can manage be tied to Cha could work.

Hard to bolt that onto existing 5e without throwing off class balance though.

Not a fan of the Int skills stuff in 3.5, it overly penalised builds with low Int, and made classes with naturally high Int (read, wizards) unnaturally good at skills. Building a Sorcerer was painful in the skills department. Making Int more important could be done by making more complex monsters with an array of strengths and weaknesses, and having the Investigate skill able to suss these out, I think.

[Xervous]

Not a fan of the Int skills stuff in 3.5, it overly penalised builds with low Int, and made classes with naturally high Int (read, wizards) unnaturally good at skills. Building a Sorcerer was painful in the skills department. Making Int more important could be done by making more complex monsters with an array of strengths and weaknesses, and having the Investigate skill able to suss these out, I think.

That’s mostly a trap option though. If the weakness is so glaring it’s worth anyone’s attempt to figure it out. Given bounded accuracy, the barbarian probably has a decent chance at landing the roll. If the weakness is something like “can only be damaged with silver” everyone will be throwing their turn at figuring out the needed puzzle piece to even engage the monster past which point everyone will have the knowledge and the party kills it or flees. Alternatively the weakness is less pronounced. Something like “low INT save” is not something every character can exploit, so knowledge of that fact will not change their battle plans. Investing for a roll everyone will do but the party only needs a success at is of minimal benefit. Investing for a roll that might not even be useful is straight up gambling. This is even before considering for the standard player/campaign/creature you’re going to figure out these things just by playing, and may have repeat encounters where you can apply your previous learning.

[Salmon343]

That’s mostly a trap option though. If the weakness is so glaring it’s worth anyone’s attempt to figure it out. Given bounded accuracy, the barbarian probably has a decent chance at landing the roll. If the weakness is something like “can only be damaged with silver” everyone will be throwing their turn at figuring out the needed puzzle piece to even engage the monster past which point everyone will have the knowledge and the party kills it or flees. Alternatively the weakness is less pronounced. Something like “low INT save” is not something every character can exploit, so knowledge of that fact will not change their battle plans. Investing for a roll everyone will do but the party only needs a success at is of minimal benefit. Investing for a roll that might not even be useful is straight up gambling. This is even before considering for the standard player/campaign/creature you’re going to figure out these things just by playing, and may have repeat encounters where you can apply your previous learning.

Good points - this again highlights the problem of ability scores, I think. There's a need to prevent a stat from being a dump stat - doesn't feel fair when an ability score is less useful outside of its main purpose, for players that are forced to main it. I feel like the detachment of ability scores from skills would solve the problem entirely.

Enemy analysis is something that could work well, maybe if it was abstracted from the monster itself? Such as giving advantage on an attack, or disadvantage for them to attack you. You could tie it to each of the mental abilities, but give INT the strongest one given its the weakest for skills. (Which I'm not convinced is true, INT skills can be super useful when used well - lore gathering is very important for planning missions and strategies. A lot of the problem is the nebulous overlap of perception and investigation, which gives perception a bit too much.)

[Terebin]

Does anyone know of any games that do a good job of MAD character generation? I know Pillars of Eternity had that as a design goal, but I haven't played it so I don't know how well they accomplished it.

I think any game where you have a party of characters, specialization is going to be the rewarded strategy.

Most players, the first time they play, have very well rounded stats. They really don't like having negative modifiers, and only tolerate a nuetral one (0). It feels really bad to them to potentially be bad at something.

[Frogreaver]

Does anyone know of any games that do a good job of MAD character generation? I know Pillars of Eternity had that as a design goal, but I haven't played it so I don't know how well they accomplished it.

I think any game where you have a party of characters, specialization is going to be the rewarded strategy.

Most players, the first time they play, have very well rounded stats. They really don't like having negative modifiers, and only tolerate a nuetral one (0). It feels really bad to them to potentially be bad at something.

As long as specialization has diminishing returns that’s not so much the case. Typically specialization has synergistic returns though.

But maybe more importantly is that the system itself can never accomplish making all modifiers meaningful as the campaign and DM style tends to cause most of the difference in what players value.

[Moxxmix]

I'm going to approach this from the perspective of a barbarian character I played. The initial build was pretty much what you'd expect: Str first, Con second, Dex and Wis third, an average Cha, and dumping Int.

The barbarian class is pretty singularly focused attribute-wise, so you're normally pretty locked-in on the Str build. However that changed when we received a particular reward: a belt of giant strength. A belt of giant strength fixes Str to a value of 21 (or higher, with higher-tier belts), which means your actual Strength score doesn't matter.

This happened fairly early in the game, so I hadn't actually boosted my Str any. (I'd picked up Durable as a half-feat to raise Con to an even number at level 4.) Having the belt meant that I could completely change my approach to stat and feat gains from then on. I picked up Tavern Brawler, and boosted Wisdom (with an intended focus on Animal Handling, due to events in the game). I still had a low Int, but that had become a bit of an in-joke at the table, and I wasn't worried about changing it.

The point being: mechanically, SAD is a better approach (especially for non-Fighter/Rogue classes who don't get as many ASIs), however thematically, and to be effective at more than one thing, you kinda need MAD. The idea, then, is to negate the need to focus on the stereotypical SAD stat for a given class, which allows the player to choose a different SAD stat to focus on, which really opens up creative freedom.

If I don't "need" to focus on Str for my barbarian, I can focus on Con, or Wis, or Cha, or whatever, and have a competent barbarian that also has some other unique thing he's good at. Maybe it's a focus on Intimidation (Cha), or Animal Handling (Wis), or even Medicine (Int). It's not the same as MAD, where your resources are spread so thin you're just mediocre at everything, but it's not the hyperfocused SAD that makes your Class X character look the same as every other Class X that has ever existed.

It's really difficult to build the mechanical design of the attributes such that you can end up with this during normal development, but magic items give you an avenue to look at things this way. I'd probably start with Gauntlets of Ogre Strength (Str 19), and similar items for other stats, that start showing up around level 5. You still have to put some effort into the original stat for the first few levels, and you have to be aware that that bonus from the item is always at risk of being lost, but it also means you don't have to focus on that stat for all your remaining levels.

Downside: It still incentivizes the usual overpowered feats (Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert) if you can skip raising the class's primary stat, so you'll probably want to ban those in exchange.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'm thinking our paladins (and we've had one in every 5e but one) have been the most diverse and unique characters both thematically and mechanically in part due to their MAD nature... and that's a good thing. The variation in distribution among Chr, Str, Dex, and Con have contributed to this, and every one of them was at least a moderately strong character. However, because those decisions were impactful, players knew they were having to give up something in one area to be really strong at another.

[Man_Over_Game]

Does anyone know of any games that do a good job of MAD character generation? I know Pillars of Eternity had that as a design goal, but I haven't played it so I don't know how well they accomplished it.

I think any game where you have a party of characters, specialization is going to be the rewarded strategy.

Most players, the first time they play, have very well rounded stats. They really don't like having negative modifiers, and only tolerate a nuetral one (0). It feels really bad to them to potentially be bad at something.

Haven't played it yet, but I've heard enough about Disco Elysium and how it does something like that. Too weak and you'll fail a bad roll on an icy stair and break your neck. Too dumb and you won't see the bus as you focus too hard on the restaurant across the street.

Weirdly enough, after thinking about it, 4e actually kinda encouraged MADness through the powers you picked. You always had your main stat, but half the powers you got were divided into the two "secondary" stats you were encouraged to invest towards within that class.

For instance, Monks would mostly get powers that scaled off of Dexterity, but you would also get powers that scaled of Strength or Wisdom, with Strength powers generally increasing your durability and damage, while Wisdom made you more mobile and afflicted status conditions.

It was an interesting solution that refused to go down the "generalist" route of "All stats are good for everyone" method of solving the problem. It felt like a class-focused solution, which has the benefit of making your character feel actively cooler, instead of just getting a bonus to AC or whatever a bonus to a tertiary stat gives you.

[No1ofIntrst]

While I like MAD classes in theory, I feel like they also lose out by punishing multiclassing and feats, as both of those rely on having extra ASIs left over. A monk will only be able to take 1 feat (assuming they start with 16 dex/16 wis) and is punished for multiclassing, as it means that their abilities will be less powerful than their part members. On the other hand, a barbarian can take lots of interesting and flavourful feats or multiclassing opportunities, as they only need 2 ASIs to max out their main stat.

[Kane0]

Ideally I'd like a system that rewards and penalises generalists and specialists roughly equally. Asymmetrically perhaps, but equally.

[Ettina]

Personally, I like both to be fairly viable depending on what you want to make. I like having the option to specialize at the cost of being bad at things, or generalize at the cost of not being as good at your strengths, and MAD vs SAD is just one of many ways this can show up.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've noticed no one has mentioned the pillars of play, and how pure SADness makes it harder to be relevant or engaged in more than one pillar.

I want MAD as a player. I'm ok with a +2 primary ability at level 1-3. Why play sub-optimal? I expect the game will get to 8th, and that's a lot of play time that I might enjoy more if I'm not +3 at level 1. This allows for an odd stat to be aided by a half feat.

TLDR- I don't always play, but when I do, I play MAD.

[Stangler]

Just to clarify, for those that didn't read through the first page, the thread isn't necessarily about MAD vs. SAD, but rather what they represent.

One represents diversity, aka The Bard. Being acceptable at more than one thing, so that you always have something to do. The player is always involved, always reading and reacting, but it can come at the cost of potentially overshadowing your allies or having too high of an energy cost on the player.

The other represents specialization, aka The Barbarian. Being great at doing one thing, so that your strengths shine, and so that your weaknesses can be used against you. You rely on your allies more, as they rely on you, but further specialization generally means fewer available decisions and less "game" the more you play.


I think adding more diverse options makes the game better, but more exhausting. It rewards the player, but not the players. It's the Pact of the Chain Warlock who has an invisible, flying familiar who completely overshadows the scouting Ranger in the same party. Sure, he feels cool, but would the table as a whole have less fun if he had a little...less? If the Ranger was a better scout, would the Warlock feel worse?

On the other hand, adding specialization improves teamwork, but at the cost of making the game simpler and more boring. When you want to expand your horizons, and your only option is to tack on more and more limitations to your playstyle, gameplay can stagnate to the point where you have little to look forward to. It's the level 10 Barbarian wondering "When the heck will I ever get to do something that isn't the same melee Attack Action I've done in the last 20 sessions?"


My question is, which is healthier for the game overall?

I think characters should generally have a primary purpose and a secondary one as well. Diversity is in multiple paths to a specialization(primary and secondary), multiple forms of specialization, and different combinations of primary and secondary specializations.

I think the problem with the warlock is that two different roads to a specific specializations are not balanced against one another well and there isn't a lot of point in having multiple players with a specific specialization. In the case of stealth I think a player specialized in stealth or even multiple players specialized in stealth should provide more concrete advantages to the party as they set up their ambush. The rules offer a lot of control to the DM to allow this but are not specific enough to provide a clear benefit and playstyle.

Stealth is also a hard topic as people have much different opinions about how it should work. So making rules that set things in stone can upset a group of people.

[Ettina]

I've noticed no one has mentioned the pillars of play, and how pure SADness makes it harder to be relevant or engaged in more than one pillar.

I want MAD as a player. I'm ok with a +2 primary ability at level 1-3. Why play sub-optimal? I expect the game will get to 8th, and that's a lot of play time that I might enjoy more if I'm not +3 at level 1. This allows for an odd stat to be aided by a half feat.

TLDR- I don't always play, but when I do, I play MAD.

Depends on the ability.

If you're heavily invested in Strength, yeah, you're probably useless in any situation that isn't combat, picking things up, or breaking things.

If you're heavily invested in Intelligence, on the other hand, you're probably a spellcaster with a mittful of utility spells making you useful in all the pillars.

[Morty]

Haven't played it yet, but I've heard enough about Disco Elysium and how it does something like that. Too weak and you'll fail a bad roll on an icy stair and break your neck. Too dumb and you won't see the bus as you focus too hard on the restaurant across the street.

Weirdly enough, after thinking about it, 4e actually kinda encouraged MADness through the powers you picked. You always had your main stat, but half the powers you got were divided into the two "secondary" stats you were encouraged to invest towards within that class.

For instance, Monks would mostly get powers that scaled off of Dexterity, but you would also get powers that scaled of Strength or Wisdom, with Strength powers generally increasing your durability and damage, while Wisdom made you more mobile and afflicted status conditions.

It was an interesting solution that refused to go down the "generalist" route of "All stats are good for everyone" method of solving the problem. It felt like a class-focused solution, which has the benefit of making your character feel actively cooler, instead of just getting a bonus to AC or whatever a bonus to a tertiary stat gives you.

I don't think it's possible for D&D to every go down the "all stats are good for everyone" route. 4E's approach at least introduced consistency and built-in variety... though it did still come down to your attribute spread being locked in the moment you pick your class and in-class options.

[Unoriginal]

From a design standpoint, DnD 5e is definitely a SAD-focused game.

Yet, I can't imagine a character who benefits more from having one 20 and five 10s as their stats than from having two 16s and four 10s.

A Rogue may only *depend* on DEX, but there's so many things that become an hassle to do without other stat mods. Including fighting, because without CON your character won't have much health.

[Frogreaver]

Yet, I can't imagine a character who benefits more from having one 20 and five 10s as their stats than from having two 16s and four 10s.

A Rogue may only *depend* on DEX, but there's so many things that become an hassle to do without other stat mods. Including fighting, because without CON your character won't have much health.

Give me the 20 dex rogue any day.

[Dienekes]

Give me the 20 dex rogue any day.

It really depends on the playstyle for me here. If you're sitting at a table expecting to go blustering in and getting into scraps (which admittedly is a lot of what D&D seems to be based on) then honestly I'd prefer the Con.

If you're allowed to use every available resource available to you, and are in a party perfectly content with avoiding encounters. Or just focus a lot more on things other than brawling, I might choose the Dex 20 sharpshooter build.

Probably wouldn't take the Str 20 barbarian over the Str 16, Con 16 barbarian though. They have a bit less in the way of options they can use to mitigate the need for Con.

[Ganryu]

I think classes should be SAD. It let's you put the rest of your stats where you're able to benefit out of them more. Have an optional secondary stat for flavor, but don't make it required.

Look at Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers. Each one is going to play like a typical one, because they have to pump their three main stats as much as possible. They can't pick up feats for fun. They can't role play against class because they don't have the optional stats. Also, apparently, all 3 classes are as dumb as a box of crayons. Also notice that they tend to be considered some of the weakest classes. I'll admit, somehow paladin gets away with it, but at least you can pick between dex and strength with them, there's SOME variation.

Now people say 'well only min maxers care about that'. No, min maxers see where they are getting punished for not playing to trope. You don't have to be the perfect murder machine, but when fighter can be a linguistic genius because its fun with no reprecusions, and you lose AC and striking power for trying, that's not balanced.

[Unoriginal]

Now people say 'well only min maxers care about that'. No, min maxers see where they are getting punished for not playing to trope. You don't have to be the perfect murder machine, but when fighter can be a linguistic genius because its fun with no reprecusions, and you lose AC and striking power for trying, that's not balanced.

I think you're mixing up some terms here. A min-maxer *wouldn't* care about it, because min-maxing is about minimizing everything that can be minimized in order to maximize the area they've chosen.

In other words, a min-maxer would be fine with a character being a linguistic genius at the cost of their fighting capacities, or being inept at language to make them better at fighting.

[Ganryu]

I think you're mixing up some terms here. A min-maxer *wouldn't* care about it, because min-maxing is about minimizing everything that can be minimized in order to maximize the area they've chosen.

In other words, a min-maxer would be fine with a character being a linguistic genius at the cost of their fighting capacities, or being inept at language to make them better at fighting.

Alright, to clarify, there are a lot of people who've said it doesn't matter if you don't play a class at their full potential, that's something only a min maxer does.

But it hurts a barbarian a heckuva lot more to do that than a fighter. Fighter can still get full load out he needs without problem. Barbarian still is missing out stats, and that one extra feat hurts a lot.

Fighter can throw casually 16 into charisma because they feel like it, still hit 20 strength and con.

Barbarian really can't...

[Theodoxus]

There are games that are legitimately SAD. Any variation of Fighter/Mage/Rogue (Str/Dex/Int, Body/Mind/Soul... there's lots of iterations) does it. One could do it with D&D without a lot of problem (standardize HP, remove Con, adjust enemy damage capability, tie Defense to the Offense stat (Heavy armor and Light armor already do this, just need to change Mage Armor to 13+caster stat and give it to bard, clerics and druids). Plus a few more small changes.

But that's no longer D&D and you might as well play FMR anyway.

In regards to specialization vs generalization, I can see how it could play as SAD vs MAD, but it doesn't really need to. Once again, though, the magic vs martial divide rears its ugly head. It's much easier to be a generalist through magic; movement becomes trivial, you have many options for combat, able to target any of the 6 saves or AC depending on your needs; supporting your team by bolstering them or hampering the enemy; removing or creating status effects... all things a martial might have a very limited ability to do, but certainly not all.

If you wanted every class to have at least one way/subclass that could be a true generalist, you would need to create something like the Book of Nine Swords, only include a lot more options in the Exploration and Socialization columns. But you'd also have to make sure that a generalist can't also become a specialist, and I'm having a hard time seeing how to actually accomplish that.


Oh, i was also going to mention that defining terms here would be useful. Since we know that SAD isn't actually a thing, is SAD actually 3 or fewer attribute dependence and MAD is 4 or more?

[Dienekes]

There are games that are legitimately SAD. Any variation of Fighter/Mage/Rogue (Str/Dex/Int, Body/Mind/Soul... there's lots of iterations) does it. One could do it with D&D without a lot of problem (standardize HP, remove Con, adjust enemy damage capability, tie Defense to the Offense stat (Heavy armor and Light armor already do this, just need to change Mage Armor to 13+caster stat and give it to bard, clerics and druids). Plus a few more small changes.

But that's no longer D&D and you might as well play FMR anyway.

In regards to specialization vs generalization, I can see how it could play as SAD vs MAD, but it doesn't really need to. Once again, though, the magic vs martial divide rears its ugly head. It's much easier to be a generalist through magic; movement becomes trivial, you have many options for combat, able to target any of the 6 saves or AC depending on your needs; supporting your team by bolstering them or hampering the enemy; removing or creating status effects... all things a martial might have a very limited ability to do, but certainly not all.

If you wanted every class to have at least one way/subclass that could be a true generalist, you would need to create something like the Book of Nine Swords, only include a lot more options in the Exploration and Socialization columns. But you'd also have to make sure that a generalist can't also become a specialist, and I'm having a hard time seeing how to actually accomplish that.

I'm curious if this sort of thing would work better if magic was given a more complex treatment.

Say you have your Mage casting spells. But Intelligence is tied to how many spells you know. Wisdom is how many spells you can cast without getting tired. And Charisma is how powerful your spells are once cast.

It's not like D&D anymore, obviously. But it brings about the question of what you want to focus on. Do you want to be a generalist? Focus Intelligence. Want to be a specialist? Focus Charisma. With Wisdom acting as essentially a mage's Constitution in that they need it pumped at least a little for longevity.

[MrCharlie]

Yet, I can't imagine a character who benefits more from having one 20 and five 10s as their stats than from having two 16s and four 10s.

A Rogue may only *depend* on DEX, but there's so many things that become an hassle to do without other stat mods. Including fighting, because without CON your character won't have much health.
Maybe a Fighter or Rogue. I'd play an archer with a 20 DEX over one with a 16 DEX and 16 CON, maybe. And while you'd almost certainly be better off taking two 16's as a caster to put one in CON, I'd have a blast playing a Bard with 20 CHA and mediocre or bad stats otherwise.

As a corollary; I can think of maybe three classes where I'd take three 14s and three 10s over two 16s and four 10s (Monk, Ranger, Paladin) and for each it's marginal. While many classes are "MAD", it rarely reaches past DAD-they want two attributes, not three. TAD is rare and most classes that are TAD are either weaker or only care for the third attribute a bit.

Also, given that one of those attributes is always CON, because re-rolling characters is a pain if nothing else, there's even less true MADness.

From a design perspective, I'd make 6e more MAD but improve the interconnectivity of attributes so that each attribute helped the same thing. For instance, for a finesse weapon, add both your STR and DEX modifier to attack and damage. There should be SAD options, like adding 1.5 X str to most two-handed weapons, but MADness should be rewarded.

Hence, MADness shouldn't be a trade off of "do three things mediocre" compared to "do one thing well"; MADness should reward most holistic rolls like attacking or making a saving throw while SADness should reward targeted rolls like lifting a weight or picking a lock.

[Frogreaver]

Alright, to clarify, there are a lot of people who've said it doesn't matter if you don't play a class at their full potential, that's something only a min maxer does.

But it hurts a barbarian a heckuva lot more to do that than a fighter. Fighter can still get full load out he needs without problem. Barbarian still is missing out stats, and that one extra feat hurts a lot.

Fighter can throw casually 16 into charisma because they feel like it, still hit 20 strength and con.

Barbarian really can't...

The necessity of con on a barbarian is a bit overstated. Don’t get me wrong I love extremely tanky barbarians but with 10 con and their high hit dice and rage you really can get by just fine. You’ll reckless attack a bit less but otherwise will still be in good shape.

[Unoriginal]

The necessity of con on a barbarian is a bit overstated. Don’t get me wrong I love extremely tanky barbarians but with 10 con and their high hit dice and rage you really can get by just fine. You’ll reckless attack a bit less but otherwise will still be in good shape.

Or you wear half-plate.

[Frogreaver]

Or you wear half-plate.

Assumed that was a given

[PhoenixPhyre]

Re specialization:

I want a happy medium. Characters who are 10/10 (absolutely superb, unmatchable) at one narrow thing and 2/10 (basically incompetent) at everything else feel super fake to me. And require the party to act as a multi-headed character or tag-team routine, always swapping to the "specialist". Which is totally unnatural. On the other hand, I hate when the generalist is as good or better at things than the specialist is. I'd prefer if all characters had, by definition, a "specialty" at which they were (roughly) 8/10 (good, but not overwhelmingly so) at a couple things and then were 5/10 (passable, but not great) at everything else.

Re ability score dependency:

I think there's a huge swing depending on who is doing the looking here. The game math itself (ie what's presented in the MM, using the DMG/Xanathar's guidance on encounter building) is totally happy as long as you
* put your highest score into your attack stat and raise it to 18 by level 14 or so
* have a positive Constitution modifier and any "significant" secondary modifiers (WIS for monks, CHA for paladins, etc); if you're a monk, barbarian, or cleric, you should probably use an ASI to boost that secondary to +2 or +3 modifier.
* don't do stupid things like wear armor you're not proficient in or wield weapons you're not proficient in.

This leaves lots of room for customization. It means you've got build flexibility to customize, and if you want to be a smart or wise fighter or a strong rogue, you can. Or even a barbarian with a brain (shocking, I know). And the game really doesn't care as long as the DM realizes that that's the party they're going for and builds towards that.

However, the playerbase is not ok with those. Because they're not willing to be baseline. They want to push the boundaries of the system, generally fighting (by DMG standards) Deadly+ encounters and having lots of fights vs solos of CR = level + 3-5 instead of mostly fights against groups of CR = level / 2 or level / 3 monsters. They want ones where numerical combat optimization is essential.

And once you do that, the requirements get a lot higher and the resource contention for feats and ASI's becomes fierce, and MAD classes get shafted. And all similar builds for the same class end up looking very samey-samey. All dexadins? Basically the same (attribute wise). All monks? Identical (except maybe subclass). Etc. The more you want to seek the pinnacles of combat optimization, the less build flexibility exists.

Personally, I'm totally happy in the first camp and think the second camp is causing themselves a lot of problems. My focus is on the narratives the characters enable and what the character choices tell me, not combat (or anything else difficulty). I'm a bad DM for people who want to overcome mechanical challenges--they'll steamroll everything because I don't think that way at all (not in any game). Playing games to be challenged just isn't my style. But I understand that I'm an outlier, at least on these forums.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Personally I'm MAD all the way.

I may be a tad biased because I absolutely LOVE Paladins, but I just find that balancing multiple crucial ability scores that impact different parts of your build is always interesting to me. Maybe it's my attraction to GISH type Caster/Martial hybrids, and having both attacks and spellcasting, but I've always enjoyed having two different sets of abilities that key off different stats. The tradeoff between the 2/3 key ability scores in a MAD character is just very enjoyable.

But I also think there's room for SAD classes as well. Even classes that might normally be SAD should have options to be played MAD, like a DEX barbarian, a low WIS brawler monk, or a low CHA warrior paladin. (Just smites), should it be optimal? Probably not, but I think it's important that it's (mostly) a choice of the player, because some people want to be unequivocally the best at one aspect without too much struggle.

[stoutstien]

I'd prefer a slight nudge in the MaD direction but it needs to be be done properly. Paladins, excluding hex dips, are the prime example of striking a good balance of giving really powerful reasons to promote multiple stats buy doesn't outright demand it either.

[jas61292]

First, true SADness doesn't exists in D&D currently, because of Constitution's link to HP and Concentration checks, and in a lesser way Dexterity's link to AC and initiative.

And "fake SADness" is probably the worst place D&D could be.

(1) In favour of true SADness. In a truly SAD system, your main ability score is maxed out, no question asked. But then, you are free. Want some Int, or some Dex? Both are objectively as good as the other since don't have any direct interaction with your class. You can model you ability scores to match the personality of your character, rather than having to consider some optimisation or practicality purposes.

(2) In favour of full MADness. MADness improves the depth of the system. You have multiple different choices at character creations, that will have significant consequences on the gameplay.

IMO, both choices enable a different vision of what character creation should be: Is it the moment where you're doing meaningful choices through a menu of interesting concepts? Or is it the moment where you're materialising the character concept you have in mind, hoping that the system is benevolent enough to have it being a viable character concept?

I think this is one of the most true statements about the game. Either MAD or SAD would be perfectly fine, in different ways. But current D&D is neither. It pretends to be SAD, while forcing certain stats as secondary stats.

If characters were truly SAD, it would encourage investment into whatever secondary stats the player finds interesting. But that is not what the game does. It encourages investment into Con and Dex (or maybe Str for heavy armor clerics).

Personally, I think having every class be more MAD like the Monk would be ideal, where you have more than one choice of things to boost, either of which could be seen as the best, depending on the concept. But a true SAD system would also be fine, and would be a significant improvement over what we have now.

[da newt]

I much prefer MAD characters, but I think that the best way to create the sort of mix and match creative MAD-ness that I prefer you need a system that allows for SAD classes, but rewards MAD builds by adding a bunch of fun/useful things to the secondary stat.

What am I getting at - a SAD ST Fighter or INT Wizard is great, especially if it then encourages / rewards the player to add a second specialty like CHA leader/face or super tough to kill CON, but divorces your secondary from your primary so that you can build primary from column A, and match with any secondary column B to add something else.

I don't like one dimensional characters (aka SAD), but I also would prefer a system where the primary and secondary focus of a character were independent - had no synergy so that you had the freedom to go with any sort of combination without giving up character usefulness / power.

Does that make sense? Maybe something like your class is associated with your primary, but your independent secondary is associated with your subclass / background / race ... but this would require a significant change to the way DnD has always been.

I don't think MAD classes provide what I desire (all they really do is give you a pair of primary stats) - I'm wishing for something that adds a second focus independent from the primary.

[Crucius]

Haven't played it yet, but I've heard enough about Disco Elysium and how it does something like that. Too weak and you'll fail a bad roll on an icy stair and break your neck. Too dumb and you won't see the bus as you focus too hard on the restaurant across the street.

Huge recommend on Disco Elysium here. The way it implements skills changed my whole perception on them.

Ideally your skills wouldn't come from a predetermined package (=class/subclass) but from a list that states attribute requirements. I would love to diversify with my barbarian by increasing my Intelligence and picking up a feature that scales off of it, but the scarcity of ASI's prevents you from casually doing this, and a multiclass dip derails the whole character progression. In Disco Elysium it is super easy to increase a stat and/or a skill, allowing you to truly diversify or specialize almost on the fly.

In my opinion every character should have diversity. I usually make my characters such that they can make Attacks, ask for saves (minimum of 2), have at least 1 non-opportunity attack reaction and have a defensive option or some ability that allows them to transform (just because I like that). I have made hyper-specialized attack-monsters, but the repetition set in REALLY fast. Sadly this mostly means spellcasters, as they have super easy access to most of these things.

To sum up: I would advocate for MADness, with ideally two stats that are vital not only mechanically to the character, but narratively (=to profile the character) as well, that diversify, but not too much as to trample over the niches of other partymembers. It's a delicate balance, one that everyone has to find and determine for themselves.

[Crucius]

I don't think it's possible for D&D to every go down the "all stats are good for everyone" route. 4E's approach at least introduced consistency and built-in variety... though it did still come down to your attribute spread being locked in the moment you pick your class and in-class options.

Pillars of Eternity tried it (like someone mentioned before).

Strength affects all damage, including those of spells.
Intelligence affects all AoE sizes, including barbarian rage.

In that game it was quite normal to create a muscle wizard or a genius barbarian. I thought it was quite clever!

Though the benefits of being a videogame allow a much smoother scaling of stat-effects (like +2% AoE size per INT point) which is impossible in a TTRPG, so I agree with the sentiment you express.

Josh Sawyer IS working on a TTRPG version of the game however, maybe it will crack this very issue, who knows.

[Man_Over_Game]

The necessity of con on a barbarian is a bit overstated. Don’t get me wrong I love extremely tanky barbarians but with 10 con and their high hit dice and rage you really can get by just fine. You’ll reckless attack a bit less but otherwise will still be in good shape.

It is worth noting that 1 HP essentially counts for 2 damage on a Barbarian due to Barbarian Rage. Sure, you're only increasing your HP by like 10% of your normal HP gain per level, but HP is only redundant when you're the last person going down.

From my experience, Barbarians are the first people to go down.

[Pex]

It is worth noting that 1 HP essentially counts for 2 damage on a Barbarian due to Barbarian Rage. Sure, you're only increasing your HP by like 10% of your normal HP gain per level, but HP is only redundant when you're the last person going down.

From my experience, Barbarians are the first people to go down.

Not in mine. Played a barbarian from level 3 to 20. I only dropped three times the entire campaign. First was bad luck saving throw to a banshee. Second was a matter of attrition. I had to walk through a humungous gelatinous cube. Then the cleric had the brilliant idea of casting Wall Of Fire which gave me gelatinous free areas to walk while also hurting the cube. Then the cleric was stupid looking for battle glory to cast another concentration spell two rounds later against the BBEG of the encounter. Bye bye wall of fire, hello losing hit points every round. The third time was near the end of the campaign when the DM discovered he should be attacking me with psychic damage :smallyuk::smallbiggrin:.

[Morty]

Pillars of Eternity tried it (like someone mentioned before).

Strength affects all damage, including those of spells.
Intelligence affects all AoE sizes, including barbarian rage.

In that game it was quite normal to create a muscle wizard or a genius barbarian. I thought it was quite clever!

Though the benefits of being a videogame allow a much smoother scaling of stat-effects (like +2% AoE size per INT point) which is impossible in a TTRPG, so I agree with the sentiment you express.

I do like Pillars' approach and it gets rid of one major problem, namely strength being useless to anyone who isn't fighting in melee - or isn't fighting in melee with certain weapons, sometimes. Moreover, while Might wasn't supposed to be physical strength, people writing dialogue and scripted interactions didn't always get the memo, and it very much acted like it. Hence my tiny Orlan with a crossbow manhandling people.


Josh Sawyer IS working on a TTRPG version of the game however, maybe it will crack this very issue, who knows.

Last I heard, he decided to remove attributes and replace them with traits that give you a few bonuses or penalties. An idea I can definitely get behind, since "here's two things I'm good at, one I'm bad at and everything else is average" is what attributes boil down to nine times out of ten, but this way there's more variety.

[Paladin777]

Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I did read the entire first page and plan on reading the rest.

One of the things that I think that 4e did right in regards to mitigating SADness was requiring almost everything that wasn't a class's 'attack' require a secondary stat for riders.

The other thng that 4e had good ideas with was requiring certain key build feats require ability scores that weren't vital to the class. An example of this possibly playing out in 5e could be to require a minimum Wis requirement to get polearm master to represent having the tactical acumen to notice an walking up while you might be already otherwise engaged.

This is slightly off-topic, but something that I do miss from prior editions is having a reason to get a stat to an Odd number (other than 13 for multiclassing). Feat requirements used to be either level based or require an odd numbered stat and I kinda miss having 17 con have at least some value over 16.

[Throne12]

I thought about that. An easy solution would be to already have things that you're already leveraging from those other investments. We do this with things like saves or random checks, but that could be expanded on.

For instance, say you had one Action for each stat. A Strength Action, a Dexterity Action, and so on for each turn. You won't think about what you're losing by increasing your Intelligence when the thing you gain is inherently valuable.

As of now, Intelligence Saves are...not all that important. Intelligence checks are...Arcana, Investigation and History, things you probably aren't using unless the DM threw a specific problem at you in the first place. So the reason Intelligence isn't a dump stat for a lot of folks is because it sounds really cool to be smart. I found myself increasing Intelligence in my last character's starting stats just because I envisioned him as being intelligent, not because the system actually did anything with it.

Not saying you're wrong - there very well could be a psychological trend where people are just inclined to specialize regardless of the benefits - I'm just saying that 5e DnD is probably not a good judge of character for that.

As an aside, increasing defensive tools as a means of increasing value for secondary stats is probably not a good solution for it, but neither is straight up making the game more complicated by adding more active actions the more your diversify. In a perfect world, those secondary stats would improve something you're choosing to do each turn without making the game more complicated, but hell if I know how to pull that kinda thing off.

As a DM I find I'm asking my players to roll those three skill more often the others. Because those are information/lore skills. Pc:What kind of monster are we fighting? Me: you can roll history for legends involving it. Arcane for knowing what it is and any thing about it abilities/ what it does. Where other people use perception I use Investigation. Because if they see something they see it or if it something a roll is need for I just use there passive. I also open up all skills to any attribute. So if you want to Persuade some you can roll adding con. But you must tell me how your using another stat. For example I had a player roll using con on a Persuasion check because he was getting a dude drunk.

This helps SAD classes get more out of skills and it help classes like fighters, barbarians, wizards ect use more skills. Now a wizard can take athletic the can be explained by they are using there smarts and techniques to out power a body builder lifting a gate ect. This also allows for far more cool and Interesting characters at the same time not messing with the balance of the class mechanics/ combat balance. All this help with the feeling of MADness & SADness.

[Clistenes]

The best way to get people to go MAD and make more balance characters, is require multiple attributes to contribute to something

If you need both strength AND dexterity for weapon attacks, and say both wisdom AND dexterity for defense, as well as bot strength and constitution for health, and so on. It'll make every stat have value.

NWoD does something like that, and it seems to work well. Everything has multiple stats contirbuting

Pillars of Eternity does something like that, and to be honest, I find it annoying... you have to choose between a character that hits harder or attacks more often or has a greater chance of hitting, and it takes a time to find the sweet spot...

So I'm all for MAD, but only if the system isn't overly complex and confusing...

[Clistenes]

The best way to get people to go MAD and make more balance characters, is require multiple attributes to contribute to something

If you need both strength AND dexterity for weapon attacks, and say both wisdom AND dexterity for defense, as well as bot strength and constitution for health, and so on. It'll make every stat have value.

NWoD does something like that, and it seems to work well. Everything has multiple stats contirbuting

Pillars of Eternity does something like that, and to be honest, I find it annoying... you have to choose between a character that hits harder or attacks more often or has a greater chance of hitting, and it takes time to find the sweet spot...

So I'm all for MAD, but only if the system isn't overly complex and confusing...

[OldTrees1]

Re ability score dependency:

I think there's a huge swing depending on who is doing the looking here. The game math itself (ie what's presented in the MM, using the DMG/Xanathar's guidance on encounter building) is totally happy as long as you
* put your highest score into your attack stat and raise it to 18 by level 14 or so
* have a positive Constitution modifier and any "significant" secondary modifiers (WIS for monks, CHA for paladins, etc); if you're a monk, barbarian, or cleric, you should probably use an ASI to boost that secondary to +2 or +3 modifier.
* don't do stupid things like wear armor you're not proficient in or wield weapons you're not proficient in.


To summarize if I understood: An 18/12/14 by 14th and starting with a 14/12/12. Ignoring ASIs from species, that is a 15 / 27 points.

That does sound like what the game math assumes.

I will admit I am more comfortable with a 16/14/14 ("26" pts) or a 14/14/14 (21 pts) and reaching 18/14/14 by 12th.


As for idealism. I want classes that work for characters with different spreads of stats. Both a class being MAD or a system encouraging SAD characters are examples of imperfections / failures in my eyes. I want multiple abilities to be rewarded but not required. I want high abilities to be rewarded but not required.

Point buy rewards going wide. Especially if later increases are all equally priced.
The whole point of abilities being able to be ranked into primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary etc means there are other rewards that incentivize going tall in the most rewarded stat.
Having ability boosting magic items with diminishing returns (due to scaling prices) also encourages going wide to some extent.


Score
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18


Points
00
01
02
03
04
05
07
09
12
15
19


This hypothetical example with an extended point buy chart (a hybrid of 3E and 5E) to provide a background for some examples.
18/14/10/08 costs 28
16/14/14/10 costs 28
14/14/14/14 costs 28
Increasing the primary from 14->16 cost the quaternary +4
Increasing the primary from 16->18 cost the tertiary +4 and the quaternary +2


So we have tools to incentivize going wide and going tall will be naturally incentivized. What next?

First you need to have all abilities be useful to everyone. This could be done by having each class have hooks for each ability score, but an easier way is separate from the classes. Constitution and Wisdom are good examples of stats that are generally useful to everyone because they are defenses. In some editions Intelligence increased the number of skills known. A balanced allotment of these would help balance primary vs tertiary/quaternary without restricting characters.

Second you can design classes that reward abilities while trying not to require abilities they don't have to. Fighter requires Str or Dex. Eldrtich Knight rewards Int but does not require Int. Paladin rewards Str/Dex and Cha but you could choose to ignore one or the other. These are not perfect examples, but they paint the general picture of the class giving abilities that are enhanced by abilities rather than locked behind abilities.

In the end each character will still have a "primary" ability that is rewarded more than their other abilities. They will be incentivized to invest more in that ability. However the diminishing returns to investment and the rewards from the other abilities will balance out and leave the decision of where to invest more of a preference rather than a right/wrong answer.

Specialists and Generalists can coexist when the reward for specialization is met with the opportunity cost for specialization.

[Eric Diaz]

I don't want all attributes to be necessary, but I'd like them to be always useful. The thing that bothers me is that intelligence, charisma, strength (and a combination of BOTH strength and dexterity) are not very useful for most characters.

Notice that wisdom, dexterity and constitution are useful for everyone because they are good "defense" attributes. I have often considered making "mental defense" some combination of wisdom, intelligence and charisma, etc.

The 4e solution was nice (pairing attributes for STs), but I'd take the AVERAGE instead. And add proficiency bonus to all saves to compensate. We cut saves by half and now every ability is useful - including odd numbers.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/05/fortitudereflexwill-in-d-5e-another.html

[Theodoxus]

IMO, going back to 4Es 3 saves where each is the better of a physical or mental stat would be a way to do it. The 4 Defenses were, IME, far more elegant than the 7 we have now. And the ability of martials to target non-AC defenses was genius.

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it again, but WotC did a massive disservice to the game by throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it came to repudiation of 4E. I see why they did, but there are a TON of excellent ideas from the system that could have been incorporated into 5E that didn't affect 'the feel' of 2E that they were shooting for. Heck, maintaining Fort/Ref/Will saves IS classic D&D (at least they didn't go back to spell, Rod Staff Wand, Poison, etc...)

Take 5E classes and magic, Take 4E defenses, break battlemaster back out to base Fighter and grant some of the maneuvers the ability to target different saves... do the same with specialized sneak attacks for the Rogue; rage dependent special attacks for Barbarians... a few more specialized spells for Paladins and Rangers and you're basically done. A far more interesting and interactive game with every character being a least a little more MAD if they care about their saves.

[Witty Username]

I thing ability scores matter too much, if that makes sense. Take a wizard and a fighter, theoretically the fighter should always be the better fighter than the wizard. in practice it will much more relate to the ability scores of the character. Even if you take into account proficiency, the actual difference will be 1-2 points of damage most of the time.
ex)
Wizard 16 dex, dagger 1d4+3. Fighter 16 dex rapier 1d8+3.

I think that ability scores should do less and class abilities should do more. This would trend toward madness I think since part of my complaint is the de emphasis of scores apart from the primary too facilitate builds.
Edit:

(at least they didn't go back to spell, Rod Staff Wand, Poison, etc...).
Hm, I actually prefer that methodology (well, the one where there are only 4-5 saves, Breath, Death, Petrification, Poison, Spell) because it is not specific in how the character resists only how effective the character can resist, so it allows more player creativity in describing or visualizing their characters actions. But I am not sure how big this tangent will be so I will try to leave it at that.

[Pex]

Perhaps there can be SAD within MAD by touching on 3.0 Psionics where each discipline used a different ability score. There can be six subclasses for each class. Strength Warrior is Barbarian Athlete. Dexterity Warrior is Archer Acrobat. Constitution Warrior is Tank Tough. Intelligence Warrior is Battlemaster Tactician, Wisdom Warrior is Monk Mystic Charisma, Warrior is Warlord Leader. The character is SAD, but the class can use any score as its prime. Hit points do matter, so while Tank Tough as a feature would have more hit points or any Constitution subclass, everyone should still have decent enough. Perhaps divorce hit points from Constitution and Tank Tough gets more as a subclass feature.

Maybe there is only Warrior/Fighter from which you can choose various abilities each dependent on an ability score. Let the player choose to focus on specialization or diversify. When it comes to choosing powers at a given level you get two. ST 18 player chooses two barbarian stuff, say rage and power attack. ST 16 DX 16 player chooses one barbarian one archer, rage and ignore cover. CH 18 player chooses two warlord stuff - grant other player movement, grant other player extra attack. 16 IN 16 CH player chooses one battlemaster one warlord - move opponent, grant other player extra attack

Spellcasting can do the 3.0 Psionics route and link spells to ability scores. ST is force, move things, halt things, DX is energy damage, CO is polymorphing and conjuring, IN is divination and illusion, WI is defense and non-physical buff, CH is emotion and non-physical debuff. Devil in the details.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Perhaps there can be SAD within MAD by touching on 3.0 Psionics where each discipline used a different ability score. There can be six subclasses for each class. Strength Warrior is Barbarian Athlete. Dexterity Warrior is Archer Acrobat. Constitution Warrior is Tank Tough. Intelligence Warrior is Battlemaster Tactician, Wisdom Warrior is Monk Mystic Charisma, Warrior is Warlord Leader. The character is SAD, but the class can use any score as its prime. Hit points do matter, so while Tank Tough as a feature would have more hit points or any Constitution subclass, everyone should still have decent enough. Perhaps divorce hit points from Constitution and Tank Tough gets more as a subclass feature.

Maybe there is only Warrior/Fighter from which you can choose various abilities each dependent on an ability score. Let the player choose to focus on specialization or diversify. When it comes to choosing powers at a given level you get two. ST 18 player chooses two barbarian stuff, say rage and power attack. ST 16 DX 16 player chooses one barbarian one archer, rage and ignore cover. CH 18 player chooses two warlord stuff - grant other player movement, grant other player extra attack. 16 IN 16 CH player chooses one battlemaster one warlord - move opponent, grant other player extra attack

Spellcasting can do the 3.0 Psionics route and link spells to ability scores. ST is force, move things, halt things, DX is energy damage, CO is polymorphing and conjuring, IN is divination and illusion, WI is defense and non-physical buff, CH is emotion and non-physical debuff. Devil in the details.

This is an interesting topic, and could be used to incentivize specialization for spellcasters (better than Wizard's Arcane Tradition does anyway), though community would never agree to that. 3.0 Psionics weren't exactly well received, be it because of Psionic Combat, or maybe because this exact MADness of the main class, and in 3.5e XPH they changed it to primary stat for each class.

But at the same time, it would be indeed more interesting to have several different build options for different classes like you described. I don't think we need to have all the stats viable as primary attributes for every class necessarily, but few different build paths would be interesting to have.

Though it still is not equivalent of generalist vs specialist discussion, cause a specialist character can very well be MAD, and a generalist can be SAD or anything inbetween.

[Pex]

This is an interesting topic, and could be used to incentivize specialization for spellcasters (better than Wizard's Arcane Tradition does anyway), though community would never agree to that. 3.0 Psionics weren't exactly well received, be it because of Psionic Combat, or maybe because this exact MADness of the main class, and in 3.5e XPH they changed it to primary stat for each class.

But at the same time, it would be indeed more interesting to have several different build options for different classes like you described. I don't think we need to have all the stats viable as primary attributes for every class necessarily, but few different build paths would be interesting to have.

Though it still is not equivalent of generalist vs specialist discussion, cause a specialist character can very well be MAD, and a generalist can be SAD or anything inbetween.

3.0 Psionics didn't work in 3E mode, but I'm thinking it might work in 5E mode with Bounded Accuracy. Also, I probably should have clarified that your attack stat depends on your prime. Battlemaster fights with DX. Warlord fights with CH. If you go by the second option, if you happen to use two powers that use different scores, use the respective score for the applicable saving throw, but if only one uses the attack roll use that and player choice if both powers use the attack roll. Devil is still in the details. I like this concept on paper at least if it can't work in practice, but it's all theory now.

[Theodoxus]

3.0 Psionics didn't work in 3E mode, but I'm thinking it might work in 5E mode with Bounded Accuracy. Also, I probably should have clarified that your attack stat depends on your prime. Battlemaster fights with DX. Warlord fights with CH. If you go by the second option, if you happen to use two powers that use different scores, use the respective score for the applicable saving throw, but if only one uses the attack roll use that and player choice if both powers use the attack roll. Devil is still in the details. I like this concept on paper at least if it can't work in practice, but it's all theory now.

If you remove Con (because it tends to become a God stat if anything other than HP and Saves are linked to it), you could easily utilize the M:tG mana colors linked to the other 5 stats.

Now, I don't really grok the mana thing, so I'd be the last to propose which colors match which stats best, but it definitely feels like something that would conceivably work.

[Pex]

If you remove Con (because it tends to become a God stat if anything other than HP and Saves are linked to it), you could easily utilize the M:tG mana colors linked to the other 5 stats.

Now, I don't really grok the mana thing, so I'd be the last to propose which colors match which stats best, but it definitely feels like something that would conceivably work.

White and Black are opposites. Resurrection and Raise Dead are Black spells in MTG, but you can't say a White Mana cleric of Ilmater should be denied those spells. The only similarity is both being 5 sources. A direct correlation wouldn't work.

[Witty Username]

Resurrection and Raise Dead are Black spells in MTG
Uh,
https://tcgplayer-cdn.tcgplayer.com/product/180799_200w.jpg
:smallamused:

Your point stands though, the 5 colors don't really conform to concrete stat lines very well, spell list themes kinda but they are complicated and flexible enough that most spellcasting classes could represent all 5 colors.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I think trying to shoehorn MTG colors into DND isn't going to work well. Especially trying to arbitrary assign them to the stats. Color pie is basis for the MTG cosmology and their entire world and magic system is based on it. DND works on different premises, I don't think we can actually make them work together.

[Xervous]

I think trying to shoehorn MTG colors into DND isn't going to work well. Especially trying to arbitrary assign them to the stats. Color pie is basis for the MTG cosmology and their entire world and magic system is based on it. DND works on different premises, I don't think we can actually make them work together.

MTG colors are about motive and methods while D&D magic is defined by results. Getting the two to line up is relatively hopeless.

[Pex]

Uh,
https://tcgplayer-cdn.tcgplayer.com/product/180799_200w.jpg
:smallamused:

Your point stands though, the 5 colors don't really conform to concrete stat lines very well, spell list themes kinda but they are complicated and flexible enough that most spellcasting classes could represent all 5 colors.

Correction accepted.

Since I've only played Magic between Mirage/Visions and Stronghold there likely has been many changes. :smallyuk:

[Theodoxus]

Yet by all indications, and internet chatter, WotC is trying to do just that...

[Witty Username]

Correction accepted.

Since I've only played Magic between Mirage/Visions and Stronghold there likely has been many changes. :smallyuk:

Oof, yeah you probably would have missed it then, I think it was in the early printings then they dropped it pretty quickly, only to bring it back relatively recently. When you played it was probably at its most obscure.