Ability Dependency/Importance

[Hassassin]

One option would be to give PCs with high MAD classes higher stats. So a monk just gets better stats than a wizard.

Shouldn't they just derive more benefits from them? For example, monk adds both Dex and Wis to AC so he gets the same AC bonus with two 14s as a rogue with one 18. Two 14s cost less in point buy and are likelier when rolled.

(Yeah, the rest of the monk doesn't work that way, but should it?)

 

[Minigiant]

Shouldn't they just derive more benefits from them? For example, monk adds both Dex and Wis to AC so he gets the same AC bonus with two 14s as a rogue with one 18. Two 14s cost less in point buy and are likelier when rolled.

(Yeah, the rest of the monk doesn't work that way, but should it?)

Because the two 14's works okay for AC but the 14's were too weak for the other uses of the abilities. 3.X was a heavy primary based edition. 4E was a little heavy on primary dependence.

MAD is when a class has more primaries than the system lets it handle. So just giving certain classes more ability upgrades might let the class catch up with the system.

 

[El Mahdi]

Personally, I don't want to see a Class dependent upon any Ability.

I'd rather see players able to choose what their characters primary ability(ies) is/are based on their idea of the character, and not based on their class, and have mechanics that support this.

That way they can be a Strong, Agile, Tough, Smart, Wise, or Charismatic Fighter.

or

A Strong, Agile, Tough, Smart, Wise, or Charismatic Wizard.

or

etc., etc. etc.

 

[Zireael]

My view of the problem falls squarely between the two middle options (that is, two primary and two secondary; make all six matter).

What I mean is, I want the class to have two primary and two secondary attributes, but the remaining two should also be necessary. No dump-stats!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I prefer just taking ability scores out of success chances altogether (attack bonus, skill bonus, etc.). They matter too much there, and make the game harder to balance, unless scores are radically curtailed in ways that I don't think will happen. That's my #1 choice.

However, for a compromise position for play concentrated in the lower levels--especially for certain playstyles, I can see a place for letting the abiity score bonuses run loose, but do not let them stack with anything else. Then include a module to let them stack somewhat, but with limits.

So in the base version, an 18 Str gives you +4 to hit and damage with all melee weapons. When your attack bonus from skills, feats, etc. is lower than +4, you get +4. When your attack bonus from those hits +4 or higher, you use that "skill" bonus from now on. You continue to get the +4 to damage, as this does stack with any damage bonuses. In a system with a smaller range of attack bonuses, that could easily be relevant for some stats up until around 10th level or so.

The more complicated, simulation-oriented version would work a lot like the old Basic potion of heroism. A zero level commoner drinking it got boosted to 4th level fighter, while a 10th level fighter got nothing. In between, it was graduated. So you'd compare success boost from ability scores to success boost from everything else, and get less and less of the ability score boost as you go--comparing just mod to mod. By the time you hit +10 in skill (and related), you might get a maximum of +1 out of ability score.

 

[BobTheNob]

I have done some soul searching on this point and have to admit, Im totally coming around to the idea of making every class totally MAD. Totally drop this idea of Class X = Stat Y and just make it that every class NEEDS every stat.

Then, when some of your stats are low and therefore there are some aspects of your class you dont do so well, just look around the table...everyone will be in the same situation, so how would you be disadvantaged?

I kinda like that characters will have things that they do sub-optimally, it just makes things interesting to me.

Probably a nightmare to balance and make work, but it just seems to be a more interesting approach.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have done some soul searching on this point and have to admit, Im totally coming around to the idea of making every class totally MAD. Totally drop this idea of Class X = Stat Y and just make it that every class NEEDS every stat.

Then, when some of your stats are low and therefore there are some aspects of your class you dont do so well, just look around the table...everyone will be in the same situation, so how would you be disadvantaged?

I kinda like that characters will have things that they do sub-optimally, it just makes things interesting to me.

Probably a nightmare to balance and make work, but it just seems to be a more interesting approach.

There's nothing wrong with a primary stat, but anyone who actually builds a character and not just a stat-monster is already playing the MAD game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I have done some soul searching on this point and have to admit, Im totally coming around to the idea of making every class totally MAD. Totally drop this idea of Class X = Stat Y and just make it that every class NEEDS every stat.

Then, when some of your stats are low and therefore there are some aspects of your class you dont do so well, just look around the table...everyone will be in the same situation, so how would you be disadvantaged?

I kinda like that characters will have things that they do sub-optimally, it just makes things interesting to me.

Probably a nightmare to balance and make work, but it just seems to be a more interesting approach.

It's more work in the early design, but having done that work, I think it gets significantly easier from then on. You aren't having to come up with kludges to fix problems as much, that way. It's the difference between early, solid design and the lack thereof.

Anything that makes the logical, in-character choice not too far off from the power-gaming choice, simplifies balance--without a lot of the baggage that some kinds of balancing can bring. It's not easy, but it is extremely valuable.