D&D 5E I’d be glad for MAD

[Undrave]

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.

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.

You could always make everything a combination of two stats? Maybe even remove the progressive proficiency bonus entirely and just give out more stats buff with a handful of thematic level 1 buff from class and skills choice?

You COULD put everything into STR every time to make sure your STR+DEX weapon attack and Athleticism skill be powerful, but your DEX+INT Reflex defense and Fine Motor Skill would suffer, to say nothing of your WIS+CHA Willpower defence.

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

...Yeah? Fortitude, Reflex and Will. Same as 3e. Only in 4e they were stats defences and the attacker always rolled. Which I think is the more straightforward system.

 

[ezo]

...Yeah? Fortitude, Reflex and Will. Same as 3e. Only in 4e they were stats defences and the attacker always rolled. Which I think is the more straightforward system.

Yep. That was our inspiration, of course in 3E it was CON, DEX, WIS only. Ours is actually the pairings (STR/CON), (DEX/INT), and (WIS/CHA) like your prior post.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I wonder what averaged mental vs physical stats would do. It would take several 18s to get that sweet +4….

 

[Ancalagon]

Heavy Armor martials aren't dependent on Dex.

True, however the following:

That includes for initiative as it is only relevant the first turn .

This is incorrect. A fight's last round is rarely complete. 99% of the time, a fight is ended by a PC killing/neutralizing the last foe(s). (if a monster ends the fight... often a bad thing!). Fights being chaotic and such, let us assume that each PC has an equal chance of landing that final blow - if the party has 4 members, that's a 25% chance.

So the last round is partial, and ends on the final blow. If this blow is dealt say by the PC who's 2nd highest on the initiative order, the last 2 PCs have one less round to influence the combat than the other 2 did.

So initiative has a big impact on the first round (which is often the most important round) and on the last round.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

I partially disagree. I 100% do agree with you that it is impossible to have perfect balance, and that some players really do enjoy optimization and that's ok!

However, my experience with both 3.x/PF1e and 5e have told me that there is such a thing as too much optimization being possible.

In 5e, an optimized character is clearly better than a "casual" design, but the gap is not enormous. (the gap can become too big IMO when you compare an inept PC design vs some of the very potent builds or very few outright OP subclasses, so the GM has to keep an eye on things).

In 3.x, the difference between an optimized PC and casual one is immense. This is because of the number of "choices" in the PC build is much larger, and the strong synergy between some of these choices.

(I can provide specific examples if needed but I don't have the time at this moment.)

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.

Yes, but I think another good way is to present the party with a variety of challenges, so that the "one trick pony" PC doesn't always get to "do his thing".

This, btw, is another problem I've experienced in 3.x/PF1e : some optimizers enjoy the character build "mini-game" more than the game itself - the broader game is just a means to test/prove/show off their design.

We played a wilderness game and the entire party was optimized for this, however one PC was very heavily invested in a specific play style (ambush archer basically). And while this wasn't a problem per se (it's a really good tactic in general), whenever we weren't doing that, his PC wasn't so impressive and the player wasn't interested/engaged, or even frustrated.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

I do agree with you that the game is good if there are several "valid" PC designs/builds. The party tank could be a fighter, a barbarian yes, but it could also be a cleric, a moon druid etc etc. I would say that I build a PC to fill a party gap 2/3 of the time... and I don't mind because I have a lot of options in how I fill this gap.

When the power gap between different builds becomes too large, the diversity can be an illusion. What's the point of 10 000 builds if 100 of them are massively better than the rest?

 

[FrogReaver]

This is incorrect. A fight's last round is rarely complete. 99% of the time, a fight is ended by a PC killing/neutralizing the last foe(s). (if a monster ends the fight... often a bad thing!). Fights being chaotic and such, let us assume that each PC has an equal chance of landing that final blow - if the party has 4 members, that's a 25% chance.

I don’t think you are comparing the right things. It doesn’t really matter if PC A gets 4 rounds due to final blow and PC gets 3.

It does help explain why tracking actual damage dealt isn’t a particularly good comparison though.

So the last round is partial, and ends on the final blow. If this blow is dealt say by the PC who's 2nd highest on the initiative order, the last 2 PCs have one less round to influence the combat than the other 2 did.

Sure, and the last round usually matters very little because by then team enemy’s offense has been nurtured by removing all the other memebers through previous rounds.

So initiative has a big impact on the first round (which is often the most important round) and on the last round.

Initiative order does matter on all rounds, but not because you go before other PCs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For my part, what I prefer is when MAD is the result of making an elective choice, rather than being stuck needing 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), or Wis or 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 Defender 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 and 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 actual choices, 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 feel 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 everything," 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.

 

[FrogReaver]

On Con.
I’ve played 8 con rogues. I have no problem starting 12 con on a front line martial. My solasta playthroughs often incorporate a 12 con Paladin. Str, Dex and Charisma are all more important to me there.

I understand 14-16 is more common, but I’d hate to lose the option of playing lower toughness characters. It makes for some really strong characterization.

That said I won’t typically play low con full casters. Concentrations is too important for them.

On MAD.
Its not so much MAD in a finely tuned system balanced around it that I take issue with, it’s suggesting that 5e can be that. And then the long line of IMO terrible suggestion for trying to make it so.

The issue right now is people get too much tunnel vision already. I could easily argue a fighter with str/dex/wis is a better combat fighter than the str/con all in fighter. Better ranged combat options and initiative, less surprise rounds and better starting combat positions (higher perception) and less effected by devastating will save conditions.

If there’s any area where mad doesn’t work well already it’s for most full casters. Dex/con/casting stat are all too important to them and for the most part if you want a different mental stat you just pick a different full caster (and it’s not like str does anything noticeable) - so there less of a reason to make a unique caster stats. There’s no simple fix to solve this.

 

[payn]

For my part, what I prefer is when MAD is the result of making an elective choice, rather than being stuck needing 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), or Wis or 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 Defender 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 and 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 actual choices, 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 feel 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 everything," 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.

Like many D&D design philosophies, I think the real problem is when they try to include both (all) aspects. In this case, SAD and MAD in same system. Though this is a great description of how MAD should work.