D&D 5E I’d be glad for MAD

[Distracted DM]

That's already how point buy works.

Again, I don’t think this would stop optimizers. You’re not going to design SAD out unless you design your game so wide range of skills are optimal. Problem with that approach, of course, is that the characters might end up being too similar.

What? You can absolutely design a game to be non-SAD. You don't need to water everything down like you suggest. We're just discussing the best ways to do so.

I don't think the idea is to "stop optimizers." You can't just "stop" a mentality.
Who mentioned stopping optimizers?

 

[payn]

I don't think the idea is to "stop optimizers." You can't just "stop" a mentality.
Who mentioned stopping optimizers?

Right, I think the stop min/max and want MAD are two different ideas that can be confused as one in the same. I think stat caps and BA have largely done the job of limiting the optimization gap, so thats not what im expecting of MAD. For me, its about customization within class so that you have numerous paths for characters that feel unique, as opposed to the mentioned SAD/hybrid route that you have 2 paths to choose in each class (until supplements or whatever).

 

[Undrave]

Right, I think the stop min/max and want MAD are two different ideas that can be confused as one in the same.

Well alright then.

I think stat caps and BA have largely done the job of limiting the optimization gap, so thats not what im expecting of MAD. For me, its about customization within class so that you have numerous paths for characters that feel unique, as opposed to the mentioned SAD/hybrid route that you have 2 paths to choose in each class (until supplements or whatever).

In 4e you had a primary stat for your class but each build had a different secondary stat. Like the Artful Dodger Rogue gained benefits from CHA while the Brutal Scoundrel gained benefits from STR while they both attacked with DEX. That sort of things?

What? You can absolutely design a game to be non-SAD. You don't need to water everything down like you suggest. We're just discussing the best ways to do so.

Just saying you have to stay mindful.

 

[payn]

Well alright then.

In 4e you had a primary stat for your class but each build had a different secondary stat. Like the Artful Dodger Rogue gained benefits from CHA while the Brutal Scoundrel gained benefits from STR while they both attacked with DEX. That sort of things?

The idea yes, the execution not really. I didnt like the strict this way or that way approach, hybrid multiclassing, and the saves are just whatever your good stats are approach of 4E. More akin to 3E/PF1 where you had wholesale multiclassing, archetypes, and particularly feats that really opened things up (but without the optimization gap).

 

[Undrave]

The idea yes, the execution not really. I didnt like the strict this way or that way approach, hybrid multiclassing, and the saves are just whatever your good stats are approach of 4E. More akin to 3E/PF1 where you had wholesale multiclassing, archetypes, and particularly feats that really opened things up (but without the optimization gap).

I'm not a big fan of free for all muticlassing myself.
But I don’t think we need to debate the entirety of 4e here so let’s just focus on the ‘Primary+Variable secondary’ aspect.

The Rogue would pick a Rogue tactic, in this case the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel Option. An Artful Dodger gets +CHA to AC against opportunity attacks and a Brutal Scoundrel adds STR to their Sneak Attack damage. Then, later on, some powers have an extra if you have the specific Rogue Tactic.

For exemple: the Rogue’s Encounter 1 ‘Fox’ Gambit’ includes an effect that lets the Rogue shift 1 square (i.e. move with no opportunity attacks), but an Artful Dodger can shift a number of squares equal to their DEX mod! Sometimes the bonus involves CHA, sometimes not.

Most basic 4e classes are built like this. There are a few oddballs in the PHB1 that instead have two possible primary but that model was dropped by the time of PHB2. Clearly, an Artful Dodger and a Brutal Scoundrel don’t have the same powers that are optimal, nor the same incentive to pick the same skills.

We probably don’t specifically need to tie down those extra effects to a chosen Rogue Tactic and instead just have stuff that you can pick with a bonus from CHA, some a bonus from STR and some without any mod related bonus. Maybe later you add an option for INT bonus, etc.

 

[Undrave]

and the saves are just whatever your good stats are approach of 4E.

The stats were in pairs (STR/CON, DEX/INT or WIS/CHA) so in a way it rewarded you for having at least 3 different good stats. Maybe your Fighter DOESN'T need to go all in for STR and CON and could spare some point in WIS or CHA to have a good WILL. With INT being able to be used for AC you could easily have an erudite lightly armoured Fighter with STR/INT stats and the Ritual Caster feat.

It wasn't perfect but I feel like it worked better than the 'six saves but only 3 really matter' approach of 5e where INT is always a dump stat unless you're a Wizard.

 

[ezo]

The stats were in pairs (STR/CON, DEX/INT or WIS/CHA) so in a way it rewarded you for having at least 3 different good stats

LOL those are the pairs we're using for Fort, Quick, Will saves.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Personally, I think it’s a fool’s errand to try and ‘design out’ optimization. No matter how much you take out of the game, people will hate being mediocre at stuff and find ways to optimize for what they want to do. You make everything MAD then the optimizers will find the best combination of stats with what you give them. People will continue to chase specialization because they like being good at their chosen expertise.

You might be able to convince players to make more well-rounded characters if you introduce stronger systems for assisting in an action, so that the more team member who can join in the better.

I am personally ok with people optimizing. I am more concerned with increasing diversity…

 

[payn]

The stats were in pairs (STR/CON, DEX/INT or WIS/CHA) so in a way it rewarded you for having at least 3 different good stats. Maybe your Fighter DOESN'T need to go all in for STR and CON and could spare some point in WIS or CHA to have a good WILL. With INT being able to be used for AC you could easily have an erudite lightly armoured Fighter with STR/INT stats and the Ritual Caster feat.

The end result just sort of felt like all characters come out the same in the wash. Im coming around a little to the idea that certain defense/offense capability might be better off divorced from stats, but part of me likes that MAD approach where you spread the risk for your strengths and weaknesses.

It wasn't perfect but I feel like it worked better than the 'six saves but only 3 really matter' approach of 5e where INT is always a dump stat unless you're a Wizard.

Yeah, I think if all stats are saves you need to work the system so they all equally matter. If 80% of spells target Dex/Wis/Con thats a problem.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's already how point buy works.

Again, I don’t think this would stop optimizers. You’re not going to design SAD out unless you design your game so wide range of skills are optimal. Problem with that approach, of course, is that the characters might end up being too similar.

something that could disincline SAD IMO might be limiting stat bonuses to up to equal to your proficiency bonus, without immediately recieving a ton of benefits from pumping one stat up all the way might incentivise diversification? maybe.