Clerics & Co. are Not MAD

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've seen complaints that classes with two attack stats are MAD, but I don't think people are looking at this the way the designers intended. You're not supposed to take powers that use different attack stats. People just haven't gotten used to thinking of different builds as different classes, which is effectively what they are.

Discuss.

 

[Flipguarder]

If I were trying to prove your point I'd reference rangers. Anyone who wants to understand more about classes with two attack stats should just take a gander through that class.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem is indeed build specific.
For Palidans who are considered a worst case, they lack enough powers that don't depend on Charisma, ie Strength and Wisdom based to allow any Stralidan Build that isnt suboptimal (its focus is too split to compete).

In general am fairly certain this is a "problem" that will go away as more powers come out, I keep arguing that bland convert thie attack power to a different stat is a boring way to fix the various builds.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Yes and no. I have no problem with Clerics and Rangers using different stats, as it works from a functional perspective (that is, they're not too weak) and from a thematic perspective.

But a strength Paladin and a Charisma paladin? I know they're functionally different, in that they have different focuses, but I really see no problem with giving a strength Paladin a charisma Paladin's power from a thematic perspective. They're still a "knight in shining armor" (unoriginal, yes, but that's my default paladin image) either way. One may be more mystically inclined than the other, but it doesn't significantly change how I picture the character's fighting style or image. Additionally, doing so makes sense from a functional perspective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What about Star Warlocks? Thier at-will is CON-based, thier Paragon path CHA-based. By your theory, the Star Warlock Paragon Path should only be taken by Fey Warlocks, and all Star Warlocks should be CON-primary.

'MAD' doesn't really kick in with a dual stat dependency, though, if you need to max 3 stats. If you only need 2, you're still OK, since you get to max two with 4e stat bumps with no great problem. Again, the Star Warlock is the poster boy, needing CHA & CON as attack stats, and INT to provide AC.

I do agree that the Cleric doesn't have much of a problem. Melee and 'lazer' clerics are virtually different classes, and there are enough powers for each to get by without ever using the other's.

 

[Garthanos]

They are either different or they arent.. I really only see one paladin in my imagination ... his charisma enhancing his strength and his wisdom guiding it. His real strength might be a 12 or 14 but the influence of the divine makes it functionally great!

In the past I have had a problem envisioning large conceptual differences between the divine warrior called a cleric and the one called paladin
... at least now with 4e I get the combat role Defender and Leader
differences.

We could make other distinctions.. If the paladin is modeled as inborn versus cleric being trained --- >This for me is why the cleric has higher emphasis on wisdom and the paladin has higher emphasis on charisma. So the paladin is more divinely empowered but less guided.

I had an idea where the paladin could use divine strength or divine mettle ... much more often (number of times equaling wisdom perhaps) but it added the lesser of Strength or Charisma Mod to their next action.

The current Divine Challenge is very weak if you want to be a strong but arrogant and holier than thou (aka low charisma) paladin. The current paladin is forced in to humilty.... at level 7 a strength paladin has 1 power geared for it.. and at level 9 zero powers based on anything strength... wow.

 

[Flipguarder]

In the past I have had a problem envisioning large conceptual differences between the divine warrior called a cleric and the one called paladin
... at least now with 4e I get the combat role Defender and Leader
differences.

We could make other distinctions.. If the paladin is modeled as inborn versus cleric being trained --- >This for me is why the cleric has higher emphasis on wisdom and the paladin has higher emphasis on charisma. So the paladin is more divinely empowered but less guided.

In 3.5 this is how it was explained to me

Paladins are lawful good knights of holy goodness
Clerics are like paladins except less smashy and less restricted
Favored souls are like clerics except they don't have to do homework to have spells every day. Also they grow wings.

You can guess which one I picked.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I stand corrected; there is indeed no 9th level Str paladin power, and starlock powers are inexplicably split between Con and Cha. Splatbooks probably help, but it blows for anyone in a core-only game.

They are either different or they arent.. I really only see one paladin in my imagination ... his charisma enhancing his strength and his wisdom guiding it. His real strength might be a 12 or 14 but the influence of the divine makes it functionally great!

In the past I have had a problem envisioning large conceptual differences between the divine warrior called a cleric and the one called paladin
... at least now with 4e I get the combat role Defender and Leader
differences.

We could make other distinctions.. If the paladin is modeled as inborn versus cleric being trained --- >This for me is why the cleric has higher emphasis on wisdom and the paladin has higher emphasis on charisma. So the paladin is more divinely empowered but less guided.

I had an idea where the paladin could use divine strength or divine mettle ... much more often (number of times equaling wisdom perhaps) but it added the lesser of Strength or Charisma Mod to their next action.

The current Divine Challenge is very weak if you want to be a strong but arrogant and holier than thou (aka low charisma) paladin. The current paladin is forced in to humilty.... at level 7 a strength paladin has 1 power geared for it.. and at level 9 zero powers based on anything strength... wow.

I leave it up to the player to conceptualize their character. They can play Sir Smashalot of the Order of Holier-than-Thou, or they can play an Eldritch Warrior of the White-Mage Atheists. Personally I don't think it's worth it to worry over the difference between a blasty paladin and a stabby paladin, or a stabby paladin and a stabby cleric.

 

[Garthanos]

I stand corrected; there is indeed no 9th level Str paladin power, and starlock powers are inexplicably split between Con and Cha. Splatbooks probably help, but it blows for anyone in a core-only game.

Divine Power may indeed help the palidan, but your ideas is good their is a solid fix for the paladin and it means making more powers ... For the Starlock his powers might need ... Charismafied.

I leave it up to the player to conceptualize their character. They can play Sir Smashalot of the Order of Holier-than-Thou, or they can play an Eldritch Warrior of the White-Mage Atheists. Personally I don't think it's worth it to worry over the difference between a blasty paladin and a stabby paladin, or a stabby paladin and a stabby cleric.

Snicker, I was doing a little punning what I meant by forced in to humility was his best powers would suck..
I was admittedly mixing it in with the idea that somebody could be spirited and connected to the divine but so arrogant and unhumble that by normal definitions their charisma, ie charm and ability to influence people would be poor... ie such a paladin would be the strength build, another reason for poor charisma in the classic sense is an extreme connection with the divine has broken your connection to your fellow man you cant empathize well enough to make friends and influence people.... etc your interests are bound by your connection to the raven queen and most people freak out over death... there are lots of cool concepts which may be better supported by a low charisma than a high one.

But the game currently only has support for the high charisma build. This mechanical requirement seems likely to impair those other concepts even with liberal reskinning ...

 

[Rechan]

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]