D&D 5E I’d be glad for MAD

[FrogReaver]

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.

As an example: I think many people actually prefer their Str+Cha Fighter to fight the same as a Str+Wis Fighter. For them, the secondary stat shouldn't be influencing how they mechanically fight so much as much as the characterization of the fighter and what they do out of combat. For me those are actual choices and trying to force different ways of fighting because I picked Cha or Wis as a secondary stat usually just means I cannot make whatever Fighter I conceive of.

What I've always seen happen with true MAD systems is that there is a best Combination of ASI's. It might be more of a puzzle to figure out due to more moving parts, but at the end of the day there was always a best configuration.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As an example: I think many people actually prefer their Str+Cha Fighter to fight the same as a Str+Wis Fighter. For them, the secondary stat shouldn't be influencing how they mechanically fight so much as much as the characterization of the fighter and what they do out of combat. For me those are actual choices and trying to force different ways of fighting because I picked Cha or Wis as a secondary stat usually just means I cannot make whatever Fighter I conceive of.

What I've always seen happen with true MAD systems is that there is a best Combination of ASI's. It might be more of a puzzle to figure out due to more moving parts, but at the end of the day there was always a best configuration.

personally for me, the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighter playing exactly the same way would be the worse alternative to the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighters being set into their own distinct fighting styles, because then why was i given a choice in the first place?

 

[FrogReaver]

personally for me, the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighter playing exactly the same way would be the worse alternative to the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighters being set into their own distinct fighting styles, because then why was i given a choice in the first place?

Because not every choice has to define how they mechanically 'fight'.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because not every choice has to define how they mechanically 'fight'.

true perhaps, but it's still the worse choice to me.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Strong point! We agree that it's possible for that gap to truly disappear, but you're right that you can reduce it and it all comes down to how much work you want to put into it and by how much you want to reduce it.

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.

There's good MAD (4e 'v' shaped Paladin) and bad MAD (Monk). The idea being that every build has to sacrifice an aspect of the class, but every build is a viable character on their own, right?

 

[Undrave]

As an example: I think many people actually prefer their Str+Cha Fighter to fight the same as a Str+Wis Fighter. For them, the secondary stat shouldn't be influencing how they mechanically fight so much as much as the characterization of the fighter and what they do out of combat. For me those are actual choices and trying to force different ways of fighting because I picked Cha or Wis as a secondary stat usually just means I cannot make whatever Fighter I conceive of.

There's like 1 ability the Fighter can get that mentions CHA and it's the Battlemaster's Rally maneuver. At best you could argue for a Samurai's skills? Is there any STR/WIS Fighter builds out there?

personally for me, the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighter playing exactly the same way would be the worse alternative to the STR/WIS and STR/CHA fighters being set into their own distinct fighting styles, because then why was i given a choice in the first place?

Agreed on this point. Why should I sacrifice DEX and CON for something that doesn't impact my character? A person's fighting style should just be an extension of how they approach all obstacles and problems. Someone who tackles social encounters through deception and stealth should also be deceptive and stealthy in combat. To have both completely unrelated doesn't make sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's like 1 ability the Fighter can get that mentions CHA and it's the Battlemaster's Rally maneuver. At best you could argue for a Samurai's skills? Is there any STR/WIS Fighter builds out there?

So the wisdom fighter would have the perception and insight to help him avoid difficult encounters or at least maybe get some advantage toward an inevitable one.

The charisma fighter would be better able to persuade/intimidate NPCs to aid him or alternatively to stay out of his way.

No need for direct charisma keyed combat abilities.

 

[payn]

When thinking over the MAD design topic, its good to think about combat options. Though, dont forget the exploration and social pillars. I know the 5E skill system leaves a lot to be desired in..well every pillar, but I think there is interesting space to work with backgrounds and feats for classes as well.

 

[Undrave]

So the wisdom fighter would have the perception and insight to help him avoid difficult encounters or at least maybe get some advantage toward an inevitable one.

The charisma fighter would be better able to persuade/intimidate NPCs to aid him or alternatively to stay out of his way.

No need for direct charisma keyed combat abilities.

Well the Fighter could always use more out-of-combat abilities so why not give them actual abilities that depend on CHA or WIS?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well the Fighter could always use more out-of-combat abilities so why not give them actual abilities that depend on CHA or WIS?

Because then you are forcing my wisdom fighter to fight differently than a charisma one when the probably isn’t actually going to be the case.

I don’t want to face the choice of choosing an ability score I don’t like as much because it makes for a better fighter - which is what almost always happens.

Or to have to decide between using the mechanical abilities I like better (but are perfectly balanced) at the expense of fighter conception I really wanted due to the stats not aligning.

For me your proposal removes important choices from me.