Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I’d be glad for MAD
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9316273" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>For my part, what I prefer is when MAD is the result of making an elective choice, rather than being stuck <em>needing</em> to max a bunch of things that you just can't do that with.</p><p></p><p>So, for example, some folks were...not enthused with the design of the 4e Paladin, but I actually kind of liked it. Because you could choose Strength or Charisma as your main stat, and then either the other of those two (versatility but weak riders), <em>or</em> Wis <em>or</em> Con as your secondary stat--and some builds even wanted at least a modicum of Dexterity to make the best use of swords (specifically, heavy blades.) Most of these options were quite viable, they just restricted you to a smaller set of worthwhile options, rather than being necessarily "better" or "worse" at their fundamental goals.</p><p></p><p>A Str/Wis Paladin would have solid riders and be good at smacking things, but would consequently be a bit weaker at the actual, direct <em>Defender</em> role--verging closer to a well-defended Leader with good offense, or even a support-heavy Striker with good defense. A Cha/Wis Paladin, on the other hand, could make one of the best non-Cleric healers in the game, and with the right PP could actually be a full-time Defender <em>and</em> Leader. Going Str/Cha, a "Balanced Paladin," would lead to getting the pick of the litter for powers, but you'd have relatively few uses of Lay on Hands, and your rider effects (which usually are based off of Wisdom or occasionally Constitution) would be relatively weak.</p><p></p><p>Those produce <em>actual choices</em>, rather than the pseudo-choice of "be strong or be sucky" or the even worse "choose which way you want to suck." That's interesting, engaging design, which enables varied gameplay--a high-Strength, high-Con Paladin is going to <em>feel</em> different compared to a high-Cha, high-Wis Paladin, to the point that you may genuinely end up having starkly different gameplay experiences despite playing the same class.</p><p></p><p>So, if (and only if!) "MAD" means "there are many ways to succeed, but none of them will make you successful in <em>everything</em>," then yes, I'm all for it--that creates real gameplay variety. But if "MAD" means "there are many ways to fall short, and no matter which one you go with, it'll hamper your basic gameplay," then no, I am absolutely opposed.</p><p></p><p>I find that most editions of D&D that pursue MADness in classes end up being the latter, not the former.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9316273, member: 6790260"] For my part, what I prefer is when MAD is the result of making an elective choice, rather than being stuck [I]needing[/I] to max a bunch of things that you just can't do that with. So, for example, some folks were...not enthused with the design of the 4e Paladin, but I actually kind of liked it. Because you could choose Strength or Charisma as your main stat, and then either the other of those two (versatility but weak riders), [I]or[/I] Wis [I]or[/I] Con as your secondary stat--and some builds even wanted at least a modicum of Dexterity to make the best use of swords (specifically, heavy blades.) Most of these options were quite viable, they just restricted you to a smaller set of worthwhile options, rather than being necessarily "better" or "worse" at their fundamental goals. A Str/Wis Paladin would have solid riders and be good at smacking things, but would consequently be a bit weaker at the actual, direct [I]Defender[/I] role--verging closer to a well-defended Leader with good offense, or even a support-heavy Striker with good defense. A Cha/Wis Paladin, on the other hand, could make one of the best non-Cleric healers in the game, and with the right PP could actually be a full-time Defender [I]and[/I] Leader. Going Str/Cha, a "Balanced Paladin," would lead to getting the pick of the litter for powers, but you'd have relatively few uses of Lay on Hands, and your rider effects (which usually are based off of Wisdom or occasionally Constitution) would be relatively weak. Those produce [I]actual choices[/I], rather than the pseudo-choice of "be strong or be sucky" or the even worse "choose which way you want to suck." That's interesting, engaging design, which enables varied gameplay--a high-Strength, high-Con Paladin is going to [I]feel[/I] different compared to a high-Cha, high-Wis Paladin, to the point that you may genuinely end up having starkly different gameplay experiences despite playing the same class. So, if (and only if!) "MAD" means "there are many ways to succeed, but none of them will make you successful in [I]everything[/I]," then yes, I'm all for it--that creates real gameplay variety. But if "MAD" means "there are many ways to fall short, and no matter which one you go with, it'll hamper your basic gameplay," then no, I am absolutely opposed. I find that most editions of D&D that pursue MADness in classes end up being the latter, not the former. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I’d be glad for MAD
Top