Clerics & Co. are Not MAD

[Tequila Sunrise]

[sblock]Instead of to-hit being based on the stat the power is associated with (such as Dex vs. AC), to-hit is measured thusly:

5 + 1/2 level + weapon proficiency.
+1 at levels 5/11/15/21/25.
Ban Expertise feats.
Damage is still based on the primary stat associated with the power (thus a Cha-based power is going to do +cha damage).

Benefits: Addresses MAD of Starlocks, and allows split-primary classes (Cleric, Paladin, Ranger) to go with any power they so choose. Allows for any multi-class, as you're not locked in to ability scores. Less of a rush to maximize primary stat at the expense of other ability scores. Wider array of likely race/class combos, instead of a limited race/class combo to maximize the primary stat. Removes the feat tax of Melee Training.

Yes, this means that a str-based paladin and a wizard wielding the same weapon have the same chance of hitting with a melee basic attack. That's okay with me. The Str-based paladin still has awesome melee powers and does more damage, and isn't going to get his ass handed to him in melee.

Yes, this will likely irritate those who like to play with ability scores and like being good at one thing while being poor at another. I find it simple, and definitely cuts down on needing system mastery and a dependency on a high primary ability score.

And yes, it may reinforce the feeling that "all the classes are the same" and "Uber balance in the face of fun". [/sblock]

Eh, not really my style. I'd rather 'charismafy/constify' Starlocks and whip up a couple stabby paladin powers than fundamentally alter a piece of the game.

 

[Garthanos]

Eh, not really my style. I'd rather 'charismafy/constify' Starlocks and whip up a couple stabby paladin powers than fundamentally alter a piece of the game.

That house rule was taking a stab at divergent chances to hit the old addage "whiffing is un-fun" and a bunch of things all wrapped up in one. It is too extreme for my tastes ... but

My players currently build characters who are very unfocused... attribute wise.. they like to make intelligent wise, agile strong ... fighters or similar things and hate dump stats (all those attributes are important for real humans)... So I am inclined to at least consider things like the above ;-)

 

[Goumindong]

I found a lovely fix, suggested by Keterys:
[sblock]Instead of to-hit being based on the stat the power is associated with (such as Dex vs. AC), to-hit is measured thusly:

5 + 1/2 level + weapon proficiency.
+1 at levels 5/11/15/21/25.
Ban Expertise feats.
Damage is still based on the primary stat associated with the power (thus a Cha-based power is going to do +cha damage).

Benefits: Addresses MAD of Starlocks, and allows split-primary classes (Cleric, Paladin, Ranger) to go with any power they so choose. Allows for any multi-class, as you're not locked in to ability scores. Less of a rush to maximize primary stat at the expense of other ability scores. Wider array of likely race/class combos, instead of a limited race/class combo to maximize the primary stat. Removes the feat tax of Melee Training.

Yes, this means that a str-based paladin and a wizard wielding the same weapon have the same chance of hitting with a melee basic attack. That's okay with me. The Str-based paladin still has awesome melee powers and does more damage, and isn't going to get his ass handed to him in melee.

Yes, this will likely irritate those who like to play with ability scores and like being good at one thing while being poor at another. I find it simple, and definitely cuts down on needing system mastery and a dependency on a high primary ability score.

And yes, it may reinforce the feeling that "all the classes are the same" and "Uber balance in the face of fun".

But my issues with the system go far beyond the MADness of the Paladin/starlock. In fact, the MAD classes aren't the biggest issue on my radar, as to why I like this method so much. [/sblock]

That approach leaves characters generally 2 +to-hit in the hole

Typical would be 4 or 5 and a +1 at 5,8,12,15,21,25,28. Due to stat increases and expertise

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I wonder if those who say the cleric, paladin or warlock aren't MAD, actually play these classes?

I suspect the thread title is more a dms position.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

That house rule was taking a stab at divergent chances to hit the old addage "whiffing is un-fun" and a bunch of things all wrapped up in one. It is too extreme for my tastes ... but

My players currently build characters who are very unfocused... attribute wise.. they like to make intelligent wise, agile strong ... fighters or similar things and hate dump stats (all those attributes are important for real humans)... So I am inclined to at least consider things like the above ;-)

Ah well, I can understand the appeal that HR might have for you. Personally I get annoyed with players who think too much about the 'reality' of their stats, or who try to make every stat super. D&D was designed with certain assumptions about stats, and if my players don't share those assumptions than I'm inclined to think that one or all of us should be playing a different game. One of my player's first PCs for a 4e game was a ranger with Con as his highest stat; he missed a lot, but I found it hard to feel bad. I don't mind players retraining their ability scores, but I don't really want to retool the game system to compensate for their style. That said...

That approach leaves characters generally 2 +to-hit in the hole

Typical would be 4 or 5 and a +1 at 5,8,12,15,21,25,28. Due to stat increases and expertise

If I were to use Keterys' HR, I think I'd institute it as a minimum attack bonus. Say, 3 + [3/4 level] + proficiency/misc bonuses. That way high stats still make you more accurate but non-optimizers are guaranteed a decent chance to hit.

 

[Nifft]

My players currently build characters who are very unfocused... attribute wise.. they like to make intelligent wise, agile strong ... fighters or similar things and hate dump stats (all those attributes are important for real humans)... So I am inclined to at least consider things like the above ;-)

IMHO an "Intelligent Fighter" might very well be a Tactical Warlord. (Yes, Roy, I'm looking at you.)

Similar things can be done with many other seemingly "unfocused" character concepts. The most extreme example would be a serially multiclassed Bard, and even that can be made to work mechanically.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

Ah well, I can understand the appeal that HR might have for you. Personally I get annoyed with players who think too much about the 'reality' of their stats,

Stats are there to help visualize characters as well as play the game (imaginative understanding of the stats can have them mean dramatically different things and there is more flexibility built in there than people think)

or who try to make every stat super.

People cheating on the die rolls in the old days... I remember them well... people not optimizing because all the attributes seem important in real life should absolutely not be compared to that!

D&D was designed with certain assumptions about stats, and if my players don't share those assumptions than I'm inclined to think that one or all of us should be playing a different game.

Way too dramatic of response.

D&D makes some really cool and interesting assumptions about attributes, heros will play to their best abilities (like winners do in real life) so being focused actually plays out as a good thing.

In real life specialists are also better at what they do and when operating in a team the team can succeed in grander ways (and realistically will sometimes fail in grander ways) A group of generalists neither fail as grandly or succeed as grandly as a group of specialists.

That lack of extreme failure...(might be something I think we can bring in).

One of my player's first PCs for a 4e game was a ranger with Con as his highest stat; he missed a lot, but I found it hard to feel bad.

Earlier games ( I skipped 3.x) were a bit overtly deadly and really felt like you were an apprentice without the kind of "fate" intervening which always happens for less skilled hero's in books and movies... you weren't heroic in any sense...Most characters even fighters could be downed in one attack no opportunities to flee. Boosting con and class choice was the only method for adjusting to it and the ranger was a high hit point 2d8 character so it sounds like your player both in archetype choice and attribute boosting was gaming for an earlier game and wanted to feel safe.

Players with preconceptions about how it will play have to learn the games distinctions... which is some of my players issues.. but with others it may just be philosophical.

If I were to use Keterys' HR, I think I'd institute it as a minimum attack bonus. Say, 3 + [3/4 level] + proficiency/misc bonuses. That way high stats still make you more accurate but non-optimizers are guaranteed a decent chance to hit.

Well that while somewhat targets... feels tooo patchy... and totally divorcing reliability of attacks from attributes is well dramatic enough to break too much if you do it wrong.

Having ways for "other attributes" to be useful can be a way to balance the problem of MAD because mad is no longer "a problem" ie overly unfocused character design will have its uses too. One example is making the lesser stat "sometimes" used in defense.

Alternate CA rule In place of +2 bonus.
Add a Disadvantaged Defense for each defense on the character sheet the value for Reflex / Fortitude / Wll is based on the lesser of the two stats.
For Heavy armor users if the adversary has combat advantage the attack targets reflex instead.

Note for monsters it might just be necessary to always pretend their armor is heavy and combat advantage lets you get around it. ( really stupid monsters become awfully hittable when you get CA if you dont)
shrug the main purpose is for pcs anyway ;-)

 

[Garthanos]

IMHO an "Intelligent Fighter" might very well be a Tactical Warlord. (Yes, Roy, I'm looking at you.)

Similar things can be done with many other seemingly "unfocused" character concepts. The most extreme example would be a serially multiclassed Bard, and even that can be made to work mechanically.
Cheers, -- N

Heh, yeah I have mentioned the taclord idea.. but so far it hasn't been taken. I might npc in one just to ummm show case the idea a little. (I have been pointing out characters on Penguins of Madagascar as in your face examples of taclords.. maybe I should have pointed to Xena instead).

 

[fuzzlewump]

I wonder if those who say the cleric, paladin or warlock aren't MAD, actually play these classes?

I suspect the thread title is more a dms position.

Cleric isn't, Paladin at one level, and starlock apparently.

I've played a STR cleric and brother played a CHA paladin, no MAD detected.

 

[Flipguarder]

Cleric isn't, Paladin at one level, and starlock apparently.

I've played a STR cleric and brother played a CHA paladin, no MAD detected.

what paragon path does a str cleric take?