Should 5E Characters be MAD?

[Li Shenron]

I don't want people with a low stat to be unplayable. I just don't want people to be able to dump stats without any consequences. It's fine to play characters with weaknesses as long as they actually are weaknesses.

That's also part of what I wanted to say, and why I don't like feats/spells/etc that effectively cancel such a weakness permanently.

[FreeTheSlaves]

So basically, I approve of MAD, but only when MAD allows a player to be MORE creative, not less.

Hear hear.

I would like to be able to build a dex/cha/int witty musketeer Paladin for example, or a wis/str/con rugged survivalist ranger, or even an int/cha/str ambitious would-be mercenary company fighter commander.

For this to happen I think the maths should assume a fairly modest primary attack score of say 15 at level 1. This may result in the 18+ characters enjoying a noted advantage but I'm ok with that.

Please take heavy pressure off primary attributes so that other archetypes can open up a bit.

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, right now the MADness is spot on.

I just believe, saving throws vs fear and illusions must be moved to charisma and intelligence respectively.

[Ahnehnois]

Deeper penetration? That is damage, not attack.

Given that armor provides AC, not DR, I disagree.

Besides swinging it faster, being strong also allows you to control your (presumably rather heavy) weapon better. Us weaklings can't really do much to make a sword go where we want to.

[slobo777]

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.

7th Sea has 5 major stats, and manages to make them all equally useful in combat - such that you always enjoy using your best stat, and wish you had higher score in the worst one. I'd love to see D&D pull off the same trick.

[ferratus]

Well, if you guys want to talk about strength, it isn't like strong people are less dextrous than weaklings either. I mean, if you were to stat out Bruce Lee, you wouldn't give him a low strength score just because he was lithe and quick. You might say that Andre the Giant is strong but not very agile simply because of his sheer size, but most men that are strong by training are also agile, simply because they've trained their muscles to respond.

If you are talking about men that have been trained for hand-to-hand melee combat, the number of strong men that would be skilled in weapon combat who aren't also dextrous would approach 0. So if you are going for realism, strength and dexterity for a fighter should be equally important, with a strong but not dextrous fighter having a hard blow but some heavy penalties to defense and attack, while a dextrous fighters with low strength well... don't really exist. Andre the Giant is stronger than Bruce Lee, but Bruce Lee is still stronger than average. Heck, people with high strength and high dexterity with a low con are are also almost non-existant.

The two types of D&D designers I curse the most are those who stand in the way of the silver standard and those who stand in the way of replacing AC with DR. After all, it isn't like armour makes you less likely to get hit... it just makes it less likely that you get damaged.

[delericho]

The two types of D&D designers I curse the most are those who stand in the way of the silver standard and those who stand in the way of replacing AC with DR. After all, it isn't like armour makes you less likely to get hit... it just makes it less likely that you get damaged.

Armour as DR is one of those ideas that keeps coming up, is really nice in theory, but doesn't work very well in practice.

The problem is that even if it worked as intended, it still adds a further unnecessary step to combat. Just now, the process is:

- Roll to hit, and compare with the fixed AC.
- If a hit, count up the damage.
- Subtract damage from hit points.

When you switch to a DR system, you get at least one more step:

- Roll to hit, and compare with the fixed AC (of Ref defence, I guess).
- If a hit, count up the damage.
- Subtract Armour-as-DR from the damage.
- Subtract remaining damage from hit points.

On a single attack, that extra step doesn't take very long, but when you're dealing with dozens of such calculations per session it very quickly adds up.

And that assumes the simplest possible implementation, where DR just subtracts from damage. However, the secondary effect of Armour-as-DR is that it opens up a design space, that the designers can't help themselves but to fill. And so, we get the "Iron Heroes" solution where armour gives variable DR, adding an extra dice roll every time. Or the WFRP situation where some weapons have 'penetration' allowing them to bypass some or all DR (adding yet another subtraction to the process). Or similar.

And, unfortunately, making it modular doesn't really work - that was tried in 3e, but when Armour-as-DR was used it gave a sudden and huge boost to the already-powerful Power Attack. If it's going to be used, this is really something that needs to be built in from the outset.

[ferratus]

When you switch to a DR system, you get at least one more step:

- Roll to hit, and compare with the fixed AC (of Ref defence, I guess).
- If a hit, count up the damage.
- Subtract Armour-as-DR from the damage.
- Subtract remaining damage from hit points.

On a single attack, that extra step doesn't take very long, but when you're dealing with dozens of such calculations per session it very quickly adds up.

Sure, but you have to deal with DR as a DM anyway, along with other damage reducing effects like energy resistance. Heck, it is certainly easier than trying to manage NPC spellcasters. As long as the DR is reasonable enough to bother counting (say in increments of 5) I've never had problems with dealing with it. High level barbarians in 3e weren't worth that extra step mind you.

And that assumes the simplest possible implementation, where DR just subtracts from damage. However, the secondary effect of Armour-as-DR is that it opens up a design space, that the designers can't help themselves but to fill. And so, we get the "Iron Heroes" solution where armour gives variable DR, adding an extra dice roll every time. Or the WFRP situation where some weapons have 'penetration' allowing them to bypass some or all DR (adding yet another subtraction to the process). Or similar.

Yeah, designers are like that. But hopefully a modular system will allow us to only listen to them when it comes to our own madness. I'm planning to ignore the skill system, as I think it takes away rather than adds to gameplay.

And, unfortunately, making it modular doesn't really work - that was tried in 3e, but when Armour-as-DR was used it gave a sudden and huge boost to the already-powerful Power Attack. If it's going to be used, this is really something that needs to be built in from the outset.

Well tried once doesn't necessarily mean it can never work. But I'd say for that particular case the problem is with Power Attack rather than DR. After all, Power Attack is redundant. You already have a mechanic that shows that you do more damage on a hit. It is called your strength bonus. All power attack does (and most feats) is simply force you to do something with a bigger number that your ability scores already represented.

[delericho]

Sure, but you have to deal with DR as a DM anyway, along with other damage reducing effects like energy resistance.

Indeed. But there's a difference between an effect that comes up occasionally for particular creatures, rather than one that applies to every single damage roll throughout the game.

Plus, of course, "Design and Development" has already discussed a problem with DR and energy resistance - players don't like seeing their attacks negated.

Yeah, designers are like that. But hopefully a modular system will allow us to only listen to them when it comes to our own madness. I'm planning to ignore the skill system, as I think it takes away rather than adds to gameplay.

Well tried once doesn't necessarily mean it can never work. But I'd say for that particular case the problem is with Power Attack rather than DR. After all, Power Attack is redundant. You already have a mechanic that shows that you do more damage on a hit. It is called your strength bonus. All power attack does (and most feats) is simply force you to do something with a bigger number that your ability scores already represented.

While I agree with you that Power Attack was problematic, I think perhaps you've missed my point. I wasn't arguing that Armour-as-DR couldn't be balanced (of course it can). However, switching from Armour-as-Avoidance to Armour-as-DR changes the balance of the game, quite dramatically in fact. It was just that Power Attack was most obvious and immediate in highlighting the problem. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else - basically anything that trades accuracy for moar damage.

The game can have Armour-as-Avoidance, or it can have Armour-as-DR. Either can work. But trying to do it on a modular basis is a no-go. Well, unless modules are going to be extremely invasive, effectively making a whole new game.

[DEFCON 1]

My personal preference would be to not force each class to have a specific count of which ability scores have to be primary. Becauyse you end up with cookie cutter ability score for each class. Instead, I'd rather that ALL the different things a class can do and has access to based on ALL the six different scores. Especially in cases where a class is currently getting a straight numerical bonus, I'd rather it be based upon one of the six ability scores. So for instance for the Fighter:

- Attack roll and damage add STR mod or DEX mod (depending on weapon)
- AC adds DEX mod (depending on armor)
- CON adds to hit points
- Defenses, saving throws and ability checks based on respective ability mods
- Weapon Attack bonus not automatically start at +3, but start at INT mod
- Expertise Dice progression be based on WIS mod (Mod +2 or less uses the 1d4 progression, +3 or higher perhaps uses a 1d6 starting progression for example)
- CHA mod determines how many starting Maneuvers the Fighter begins with (or the level progression of when you acquire new maneuvers)
- Fighting Styles and Maneuvers each based on and uses certain ability mods

This way each player decides for themselves which ability scores they care about, and actually can select options that are enhanced by those scores.

So for instance... if you wanted to play a more agile and stylish Fighter, mainly focused around DEX and CHA with perhaps a bit of INT... you'd voluntarily give up a bit of HP by taking a lower CON, you'd voluntarily give up the lower Expertise Die progression, but you could then select the Duelist Style and get additional bonuses from those Maneuvers based upon higher DEX and CHA scores, you might start with Deadly Strike and a second (or third) Maneuver based upon CHA mod, and your base Weapon Attack bonus would be better because of INT (which would then get added to via your DEX and a Finesse weapon.)

And this could be done across the board.

Why are the Wizard's and Cleric's Saving Throw DCs calculated using INT and WIS automatically? They already have other bonuses to their class based upon INT and WIS. Why not have each spell that requires a saving throw specify what ability mod of the Wizard or Cleric gets added to find the DC?

So Charm Person-- Target makes WIS saving throw to resist, DC is 10 + Wizard's CHA mod + Wizard's Saving Throw bonus. Because the Wizard should have to use his charisma to try and charm the person. Boom! A couple spells like that and CHA now becomes a possibly important part of a Wizard's abilities based upon the spells that Wizard wishes to cast. Hold Person? DC 10 + caster's STR mod (because you need to use your personal strength to influence the magic to hold someone at bay). Now you have some spells that require casters who have chosen to be strong.

And so on down the line.

I think the more often you can vary up the ability modifiers across the board across all worthwhile abilities... you will get more varied characters based upon which abilities they have chosen to highlight. But if you never require any class to ever need a specific ability score for anything (other than the occasional ability check)... like we currently have with Fighters and CHA and Wizards and STR for example... then we'll never get any PCs that go in those directions. Which would be a shame.