D&D 5E Should 5E Characters be MAD?

Dice4Hire · Nov 14, 2012

I for one would be happy if all the abilities were more or less equally valuable.

Actually, I would be happier with no abilities, but this is DND and we will not get rid of them.

steeldragons · Nov 14, 2012

The "base 4" classes should be individually dependant.

And lo, it came up from the basement of the Gygax that the Fighter shalt need their Strength, the Magic-User shalt need to be smart, e'en as the Cleric needs be Wise, and the Thief shalt forever be Dextrous. And the Gygax smiled his countenance upon them and said it was good and so good it was.

This, then, allows the player oodles of room to devise a character by applying their other higher scores to various abilities, as desired for their concept. Make the Dextrous, agile fighter guy, the intelligent charismatic leader fighter guy, the sneaky thief whose extra tough from their time in the gutter, or the mage who packs a serious punch...with their fists!

As you move into the [what once were] "sub-classes" of those 4 categories, the need for specific abilities increases, as the special abilities/powers/skills of those classes increase. It is logical, offers a degree of built-in "balance" for those that require it...and has a certain symmetry I find appealing.

So, those how about we call them "next strata" TM of classes [instead of "sub" so folks' panties don't get bunched with the connotation that they are somehow "less" than the base classes. Ok? Ok.] I would make have 2 minimum requirements. A la...

Assassin: Dexterity (as a "next strata"-Rogue) and Strength (for overpowering or holding their own against targets/getting "the job" done).

Druid: Wisdom (as a "next strata"-Cleric) and Constitution (for shapeshifting and enduring the wilderness).

Sorcerer: Intelligence (as a "next strata"-Mage, which is pushing it imho since I think it's better served as a "tradition" or background, not its own class. But that's a debate for another thread...and under the bridge at this point) and Charisma.

Ranger: Strength (as a "next-strata"-Fighter) and Intelligence (or Wisdom, whichever the majority of their skills are based on) or Dexterity (for extra swifty archer or melee guy).

Warlord (while I'd prefer it a theme/specialty, we know it's in, so...): Strength (as a "next-strata"-Fighter) and Intelligence (for tactical leader guy) orCharisma (for inspiring leader guy)

Then there are the "next next [third] strata" after that, the "rare" type classes with exceptional extra abilities. A la...

Bard: Dexterity (as a "third-strata" Rogue) and Intelligence (for spell-casting) and Charisma (for all of the interactions stuff)

Paladin: Strength (as a "third-strata" Fighter), Wisdom (for the clerical abilities) and Charisma (for being all shiny paragony).

Barbarian: Strength (as a "third-strata" Fighter), Constitution (cuz they's a Barbarian!) and Dexterity (cuz Barbarian's are super good at all things physical). I suppose case could be made to place Barbarians in the second strata with just Str. and Con.

Monk: Dexterity (as a "third strata" Rogue), Wisdom (for the mystical stuff), and Strength (for the acrobatics and unarmed fighting stuff).

Warlock: Intelligence (as a "third strata" Mage), Constitution (for personally containing/channeling their arcane power) and Charisma (for interactions and probably had something to do with gaining their power in the first place, possibly also flavored for using their powers).

And so forth...Shamans, Sword-n-spell guys, Psions, whatever else they come up with.

Sooooo, what was the thread about again? Oh yes!

YES! Classes beyond the base 4 (which would be MOST classes) SHOULD be dependent on more than one ability. I would be averse to making more than 3 (perhaps 4 for 1 or 2 of them) but I have no problem with "MAD" classes.

And, as others have said, ALL ability scores are (or should be) important, if for no other reason than that elusive "RP" in the "G" so many seem to forget about or demand/require mechanics attached to the score in order to give them meaning.

--SD

delericho · Nov 14, 2012

Stormonu said:
(Multiple Ability Dependance)

This came up in the monk thread, and I think it really should have it's own thread.

Should the 5E classes have their abilities split between multiple ability scores or all tied to one score.

Either they all should be MAD, or none of them should be. (Theoretically, you could have a case where some classes are MAD but get better class powers to compensate, but that didn't work so well in 3e.)

My preference would be for every class to have one primary stat, two secondary stats, and three tertiary stats. The primary should be tied in to the class's key abilities. The primary and secondaries should then all be tied in to various lesser abilities of the class. (Preferably, there should be no option allowing the player to only choose powers tied to a single score; that is, every Fighter must have some abilities tied to all three scores.)

The tertiary abilities wouldn't be tied into any of the class abilities, but they should remain useful to the character. The best way to do this is to have a wide set of things everyone can do, spread as evenly as possible across all 6 stats.

Oh, and it should probably be possible to customise classes to switch the primary stat for one of the secondaries, or to switch one of the secondaries for a tertiary.

For example:

The Fighter should by default have Str primary and Dex and Con secondary. Thus, the key Fighter ability (hitting and doing lots of damage) would be tied to Str, while the Fighter would also have lots of lesser abilities (various maneuvers and general badassery) tied to Str, Dex, and Con. There would be nothing tied to Int, Wis, or Cha in the default Fighter, beyond what everyone can do.

However, it should be possible to switch that key ability to use Dex or Con instead, while leaving Str as a secondary ability. Presumably, that would give you a Swashbuckler or Barbarian, or similar.

Additionally, it should also be possible to swap out the secondary role of Dex in favour of Cha (presumably to build a Warlord or similar), or swap Con for Int (for a Mageblade or similar). Or whatever other combinations are desired.

(At a guess, the martial-artist-type Monk would thus be Dex primary, Con and Wis secondary. With the option to switch to a Wis- or Con-based Monk as desired.)

howandwhy99 · Nov 14, 2012

Back when rolling ability scores was the only option, all sub-classes were MAD (multiple ability score dependent). But all sub-classes also had Minimum Ability Score requirements, which stopped any MAD issues from reaching play. It had to do with being qualified to even be trained or some such.

Monks were fighters, clerics, and very much dexterity-based. They needed a 15 in all three (STR, WIS, DEX) as prime requisites.
EDIT - Oops! and a CON of 11.

I don't think the class was well designed though. It required high Strength, but didn't allow monks to use strength in their open hand combat damage.

GhostBear · Nov 14, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
Low Str: Vulnerable to combat contests, restraints
Low Dex: Vulnerable to area effects, combat contests
Low Con: Vulnerable to everything
Low Int: ....oh.
Low Wis: Vulnerable to spells
Low Cha: ...hm.

Not every stat should be useful in every situation, but since so much of the rules of D&D focus on beating up the other guy, every stat should have some bearing on how combat plays out.

If everything matters, then this provides players with choices - if done well, these will be hard choices. Hard choices are what makes games interesting.

I would LOVE to see a viable fighter with high charisma and intelligence scores. I would see this as someone who can quickly find counters to the enemy's tactics and exploit them (as opposed to just hitting harder), and has the force of personality to competently lead his party in battle and perhaps frighten off the opposition.

Stalker0 · Nov 14, 2012

I generally prefer my characters MAD. I like seeing 12-14s across the board then seeing a 20 and the rest 10s or so.

To me this provides a lot more character options. I can play the same class with different stats and get a different but still effective experience.

ferratus · Nov 14, 2012

Making ability scores important for defenses, saving throws and skill checks will already ensure MAD, which is as it should be.

I also think it could be improved by allowing meaningful combat gameplay for every stat for every class. This should be outside the feats or specialties that allows some meaningful way to play depending on which stats you rolled or picked high. So for example, t would be nice if a warlordish combat abilities manifested for everyone that had high charisma, the same way it is generally a good idea to have high dex or con for every character class because you get an AC or HP boost.

CAFRedblade · Nov 14, 2012

The base four of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric are Generic enough (or should be) that they can focus on their primary stat, and place other abilities to change how the class plays and feels.

Other classes, I have no problem with being MAD, with suggested recommendations (if not base requirements) to specific minimums for those stats. *note all base requirements for a class abilities or alignment may be ignored at the DM's pervue, it's his campaign world.

ZombieRoboNinja · Nov 14, 2012

I think 5e is being designed with the hope that some straightforward SAD will actually open up more options for ability score distribution. Each class (with a couple exceptions) only rolls one ability score for attacks, so you know which ability to max; everything else is optional.

For example, if I make a rogue, I know I want high Dex. In 3e or 4e, I would also have to plan out all my other ability scores based on the feats or powers I wanted to use. I risked being "gimped" if I didn't have enough Int for Expertise or whatever. In 5e, though, it's a bit more open; all the other ability scores help in some way, but none of them is "mandatory."

Most of the core classes are like this: wizards need Int, fighters need Str, and clerics need Wis.

The exception is the "hybrid" characters that focus on more than one thing: war clerics and now monks. Each of those classes has two "main" abilities to keep track of. But if you're actually min-maxing, neither is a real problem: clerics don't get extra spells or healing from Wis anymore, so a war cleric can get by with a mediocre Wis score, and monks get the same super-high attack bonuses as fighters to help mitigate the extra pressure from needing two high scores, so you're safe as long as you have a good Dex and a somewhat decent Wis. (After all, a level 1 monk with 16 Dex and 16 Wis has the same attack bonus and AC as a rogue with 18 Dex.) And Wisdom isn't a terrible secondary ability to have anyway, since it's still useful for several important skills and saving throws.

Kaodi · Nov 14, 2012

With point buy now capped at 15, a human anything with 16, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11 array looks pretty decent.

Edit: While it might be more typical to dump the 11 into the least useful stat, I would totally make a character that was a female human academic wizard the noble background and investigative specialty, with str 14, dex 11, con 14, int 16, wis 14, cha 14. Never being a particularly graceful lady to do natural circumstance, she instead worked on building up what she could control: her strength.