Impact of "fixing" the MAD classes?

[Greg K]

I recall that .. at certain levels no powers are even available that plays to the strengths of a build, its the power list is basically insisting that you have to broaden your emphasis... the above is somebody being forced out of there stereotype instead of seduced ;-).

I meant to write that person had mentioned lack of choice for available powers that play to a strength of a build. Sorry, for not being more clear. That is what I get for posting right after waking up.

edit: Hmm. If some levels have no options, that is worse than having one power when the other build has two possible choices which is what the poster at the WOTC was discussing. Having only looked at the books a couple of times and not owning them, I am curious as to how bad it is for certain builds.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think part of the problem is that we really need to wait for the other 2 splat books DP and AP to have a full picture. Warlocks and Paladins should have more complete lists of powers for their various builds once those are out, and the differences between the A and V then become less important. Each build is then a lot more like a full class in its own right with a full set of power options.

Garthanos, chill man. I get that you are totally convinced that your view of MAD is the one true and enlightened point of view. I happen to differ to a certain extent. I think your position on it is fine, but sometimes it is possible to consider things from a different point of view and come to slightly different conclusions. I'm happy to discuss those different points of view and all. If you want to convince people it is not usually a successful rhetorical tactic to basically argue "I am certain, therefor I am right", lol.

 

[Obryn]

I recall that .. at certain levels no powers are even available that plays to the strengths of a build, its the power list is basically insisting that you have to broaden your emphasis...

I can only think of one class and level - Paladin Daily 9.

Were there more?

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem is not in the powers.

The problem is in the bonuses to abillity scores as PCs progress. The choice here is illusory. I know of nobody who does not increase their primary stat every time.

But, the real solution should be to not increase ability scores. The fact that 2 scores out of 6 increase means that a gap is created between 2 stats and the other 4.

Some people solve the problem by bumping up every stat at the stat gaining levels. This has other concerns, but is a reasonable solution to the core problem. The game really did not need stat boosts, but...

 

[Garthanos]

I think part of the problem is that we really need to wait for the other 2 splat books DP and AP to have a full picture. Warlocks and Paladins should have more complete lists of powers for their various builds once those are out, and the differences between the A and V then become less important. Each build is then a lot more like a full class in its own right with a full set of power options.

yup totally agree.

Garthanos, chill man. I get that you are totally convinced that your view of MAD is the one true and enlightened point of view.

Talk about misunderstanding. ;-)

Perhaps you missed it I happen to agree with you that MAD != BAD, I just came to the conclusion it wasn't really something too useful to argue (but I will cheer you on if you like) especially since some of the fixes for MAD to my eye fix the underlying issue...

What I think is bad is the thing which everyone is against.. Functional loss of reasonable choices in design - FLORCID is way too verbose ;-)

In the SAD vers MAD dept solution dept.
Somebody discovered that making all the significant things hinge on one attribute SAD frees up some resources to be made in ways that dont matter much.. and figure having more choices which don't matter much, is better than the state of having no choices ie MAD absorbs all the stat location choices for a class.

I think I understand both pov.

The fix for MAD I have started liking is the one which removes the attribute from the reliability/to hit part of the equation... whiffs are too annoying in play anyway making sure everybody has fairly consistent or even completely consistant reliability seems a good thing... it partially nerfs the primary stats of all the classes and by comparison makes all other stats more significant. It is a dramatic and extreme which is a negative.

Nope not heated at all...
to put a pin in it when I said cool you havent given up... I was not in the slightest being sarcastic. I generally agree with most of your points, and think it fine about sticking to your guns in this regard.

 

[Garthanos]

I can only think of one class and level - Paladin Daily 9.

Were there more?

-O

That was the instance that leaped to mind, considering how many charisma choices there are in that area.. it makes it obvious.

 

[keterys]

So, the new classes are one stat for attack but usually two secondary stats that you tend to choose one of...

So, with that in mind you might expand it out like:

Cleric: Wis attack, Cha or Str secondary
Warlock: Con attack, Cha or Int secondary
Ranger: Dex attack, Str or Wis secondary
Paladin: Cha attack, Str or Wis secondary

I will say that the cleric and paladin wis/cha fixation is a little troubling to me... but I'm not sure it's worse than Str/Con for a few other builds so... eh?

 

[Sadrik]

From this thread here.

Tying all capabilities of a class to one attribute kind of makes the class in to a caricature.

Are they not already this way in 4e? I mean the importance of your prime stat is paramount. You cannot have a 14 WIS cleric and be competant like in previous editions. You need maximum power all the time or at least as near so as possible.

This happens because the way the system ties all powers to a single stat. Where as before if you were a wizard you needed a little DEX to make sure your touch attacks succeeded, the cleric needed a little STR to make sure he could swing a weapon properly. Instead we now have a game that is geared towards the bloated uni-stat.

I guess, my thought is if you are going to have that in place by the RAW. Why not use that to your advantage in the design of future products? It is how the game is. So, develop around that trend and enhance it.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that it is best to simply give each class a single prime stat and have no secondaries or tertiaries or second primaries. What do they accomplish other than forcing players to assign their stats in a certain way. They wind up looking like requirements and characters look cookie cut. I like options not limitations.

Unless the primary stat is somehow weakened, I see no way that this paradigm can shift. Players will always want a 18 or 20 in their primary. It just does not make any sense to do otherwise. Every power is based off of it so why do anything else? Non-gamist types may try to play a wizard with a 14 INT or something and will quickly become frustrated with the system.

So as the game moves forward, the designers should do one of two things. Either embrace what they have, a system that keys nearly everything off of the uni-bloated stat or make a change to the core rules such as moving the attack bonus away from the uni-bloated stat or something similar to weaken the power of the primary stat to encourage more even stat placement.

I think change would be difficult, and besides they are very clearly embracing the enhancement of the uni-bloated stat. As evidenced by the new PHB2 feat that makes all basic attacks based on your uni-bloated stat.

So from a design perspective, a feat that allows the Ranger to use his STR powers with his DEX. And so on down the line. These feats would shore up characters so that they would be free to place their stat points outside of their primary stat anywhere they want. Giving them many options to play a smart Ranger a tough Ranger etc. In addition, a feat that allowed players to assign their defenses as shown here.

The 4e design fiat is any stat = any use. Embraced completely this can really improve the core functionality of the game and open options for players (outside of the core assumption of a uni-bloated primary stat). Why cookie cut characters when not necessary.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

yup totally agree.


Talk about misunderstanding. ;-)

Perhaps you missed it I happen to agree with you that MAD != BAD, I just came to the conclusion it wasn't really something too useful to argue (but I will cheer you on if you like) especially since some of the fixes for MAD to my eye fix the underlying issue...

What I think is bad is the thing which everyone is against.. Functional loss of reasonable choices in design - FLORCID is way too verbose ;-)

In the SAD vers MAD dept solution dept.
Somebody discovered that making all the significant things hinge on one attribute SAD frees up some resources to be made in ways that dont matter much.. and figure having more choices which don't matter much, is better than the state of having no choices ie MAD absorbs all the stat location choices for a class.

I think I understand both pov.

The fix for MAD I have started liking is the one which removes the attribute from the reliability/to hit part of the equation... whiffs are too annoying in play anyway making sure everybody has fairly consistent or even completely consistant reliability seems a good thing... it partially nerfs the primary stats of all the classes and by comparison makes all other stats more significant. It is a dramatic and extreme which is a negative.

Nope not heated at all...
to put a pin in it when I said cool you havent given up... I was not in the slightest being sarcastic. I generally agree with most of your points, and think it fine about sticking to your guns in this regard.

Ah, my turn to apologize then for misunderstanding you .

Actually I think fundamentally we agree. The CORE of the problem is the whole concept of stat boosting. I would never have designed 4e that way, and to be honest I think it was just one of those ideas that Mearls (or someone) came up with early on in the 4e design process and it sounded good to them, and they just never really thought all the ramifications through. It does give the illusion of progress through the levels without actually having the substance, but obviously as we see now it also created more problems than it solved.

Which is kind of why I see a lot of the whole question as just "eh, lets see what the new books bring". I don't think it CAN really be solved. The only real way would be to make having 3 14's exactly as good as having an 18, a 14, and a 10 for example. That was why I was musing on the effect of just abolishing the initial point buy system and simply saying "OK, you get X number of stat points, put them wherever you want." Although it seems like it would make dumping into just a few stats better, actually what it might do is reduce the NEED to have by level stat bumps later on.

Frankly though I think the horse has already left the barn on 4e. REALLY fixing it would be effectively a rewrite. Maybe not a drastic one in basic outline, but stat bumps would have to go away, by level to-hit bonus would have to go away, monster defenses would have to be rescaled, and a lot of tweaking would then need to be done on various feats and powers, plus patches to a bunch of secondary stuff. It just isn't worth it.

So, I figure I'll just see what things look like after the other 2 main splat books come out. At least more builds should be fully fleshed out.

 

[Garthanos]

Some people solve the problem by bumping up every stat at the stat gaining levels. This has other concerns, but is a reasonable solution to the core problem. The game really did not need stat boosts, but...

I really like that solution actually... what implications does it have? Or should we call it a semi solution.