Impact of "fixing" the MAD classes?

[Starfox]

I too am annoyed by the illusory choice of stat increase, and SAD classes makes this even more so.

In 3E I gave my players a choice when they got to increase attributes; Either increase any attribute by one point, or increase attributes by two points total as long as the attribute(s) boosted do not end up higher than 14. It offered some real choice, but ended up being pretty class specific - druids and clerics could afford to take the 2-point bonus, wizards and sorcerers could not.

I think part of the solution here might be a similarly differentiated system, and/or an increase to more than two attributes; 3 has been suggested, or all six (in the last case removing any vestige of illusory choice).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmm, but if ALL stats are going to be bumped, then why bump any at all? The whole concept of bumping stats becomes meaningless unless it can change the relative values of the character's stats.

Personally I never really liked the whole stat bumping concept to begin with. What IS a character? Really the only difference between one character and another is their array of stats. One is strong, one is smart, one is wise, etc. Truthfully I don't even really like the whole "everyone has an array of stats" concept all that much. The fashion has become to give every player characters that are "equal" to all the others, but all that equality has really done is make the characters into cookie cutters of each other. The thought that everyone should have equally good characters isn't BAD, but at the same time that goal should not erase the distinctions between them. As it is now pretty much every fighter is pretty much a clone of every other one. Maybe there are 2 or 3 possible sensible ways to stat up a fighter, but in the old days there was an infinite variety of fighters. I'm not saying 1e was a better game than 4e is, not by any means, but something has been lost.

I mean I remember the characters of yore when by the quirks of the dice the dwarf was so dumb he could hardly tie his shoes. Some other character might be ridiculously well endowed with great stats. I just don't recall that people had more fun running those super characters. In fact it was almost always more entertaining if your character had real weaknesses. In the intests of game balance, something really has been lost!

 

[Garthanos]

Hmmm, but if ALL stats are going to be bumped, then why bump any at all? The whole concept of bumping stats becomes meaningless unless it can change the relative values of the character's stats.

Well if they were the smartest they will still be the smartest of the group, The reason to bump all instead of not bump them.... I don't think I need to go through the Monster Manual and adjust as much if they all bump... where as if players to hit get's suppressed... well it feels like less mechanical work.

In fact it was almost always more entertaining if your character had real weaknesses. In the intests of game balance, something really has been lost!

None of the heros in the current edition have stats bad enough to qualify as disadvantages or impairments... (unless one enforced strict die rolls)

I like explicit disads that you chose that can be somewhat divorced from the combat context or might lap in to it but just a little.

having a character who is a drunkard for instance... can add story context and becomes an overcomeable... heros who are an idiot... that is just a pitiful disad... pity is not what we are going for here.

There are some games where taking things like disadvantages are never really 'just' disadvantages... they can give spotlight to the character distract enemies from there allies etc.. when they are acting as disadvantages they give abstract bennies (maybe like action points) to you that you can use later and when they are to your advantage or resisting them (as a choice not a die roll) could cost those same bennies too
ie you used up an action point deciding you didnt even want the character to feel tempted by the booze this time.

They are limited in number because they give your character real power... heck even things that seem to be advantages can function circumstantially as a disadvantage.... call them both traits.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Actually, I came up with what I consider a better solution that I sent my group this morning.

+1 to 3 ability scores instead of 2 ability scores.

I'm also considering +1 at levels 5, 15, and 25 to "to hit" and to all Defenses except AC (to handle the math issues).

I was only going to add +2 to "to hit" overall, but Nail wrote something that made me pause. The chance to hit should be 50% so that players feel good about their successes in the game. If the DM wants a tougher encounter, up the hit points or whatever of the creature, do not up its defenses.

The advantage of +1 to 3 ability scores over +1 to all 6 ability scores is that there is still some choice then. A player of a Cleric might decide to have a slightly lower Reflex in order to bump Con, Wis, and Cha on some of the stat gain levels. Not all pros to this solution like the +1 to all 6 ability scores solution.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I mean I remember the characters of yore when by the quirks of the dice the dwarf was so dumb he could hardly tie his shoes. Some other character might be ridiculously well endowed with great stats. I just don't recall that people had more fun running those super characters. In fact it was almost always more entertaining if your character had real weaknesses. In the intests of game balance, something really has been lost!

This worked because the stats were much less relevant to your ability to do anything, they had a much smaller impact all round.

 

[Starfox]

Actually, I came up with what I consider a better solution that I sent my group this morning.

+1 to 3 ability scores instead of 2 ability scores.

I'm also considering +1 at levels 5, 15, and 25 to "to hit" and to all Defenses except AC (to handle the math issues).

I like this solution a lot. I guess you'd also eliminate the Expertise feats. What would you do about the defense buff feats? Is this by itself enough to balance non AC defenses?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This worked because the stats were much less relevant to your ability to do anything, they had a much smaller impact all round.

Did they? Stats didn't go up and were pretty much capped at about 19, but they gave pretty similar bonuses at similar numbers. 4e characters end up with a huge disparity in stat bonuses as they level up, so the stats end up creating a much bigger differential between core character capabilities and "everything else", but having a fighter in the old days with a high strength or con was a pretty big bonus. Same with magic users and clerics where a high stat could triple your available spell arsenal at lower levels easily.

Of course character's had their shtick back in 1e just as they do in 4e, but because monsters didn't generally become vastly harder to hit etc as levels went up you were a lot less crippled in your ability to do non-shtick sorts of things. Or at least those things didn't stop working AT ALL at higher levels like they do now. So it was much more viable to play a character that had some genuine weaknesses in stats. At least it sure seemed that way.

The other aspect of that is that with the way the starting stat arrays work now the range of ability scores is a lot narrower. Nothing is ever below 8. Granted you will have one stat that is way up there, but the rest will pretty much hover between 10 and 14, not much of a range. Character's were more idiosyncratic and stats provided more "character" to the character when you were likely to have a range from possibly under 6 all the way up to possibly 18 on secondary stats. In that sense characters are a lot more 'bland' now, and that just piles onto the almost utter futility of using anything based on a tertiary stat in 4e above mid-heroic levels.

I'm not putting 4e down, overall it is a great system, but it has actually in a backwards sort of way devalued stats a lot IMHO as a character element, and I kind of regret that.

 

[Garthanos]

Nothing is ever below 8.

I only EVER recall anybody I played with, playing
a character with an 8, this must be
a your mileage may vary. The ones who had an 8
in something had something else horribly high
and were still somewhat comedy relief, parody characters.

The more things change the more they remain the same...
we had more characters with abiltiies hovering in the 12
to 16 range for some reason...with fewer 18s
it might have average higher than 4e but not greatly
more variable perhaps less so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I only EVER recall anybody I played with, playing
a character with an 8, this must be
a your mileage may vary. The ones who had an 8
in something had something else horribly high
and were still somewhat comedy relief, parody characters.

The more things change the more they remain the same...
we had more characters with abiltiies hovering in the 12
to 16 range for some reason...with fewer 18s
it might have average higher than 4e but not greatly
more variable perhaps less so.

It would highly depend on what method of character generation one was using, but with some variation of 4d6 method there was a pretty good chance you would end up with a low low stat. The majority of characters didn't have anything below 8, and there were certainly plenty of rather bland characters out there, but there were also a goodly number that had one (or sometimes even 2 or 3 low stats). The ones that had a good bit of variation in stats always seemed to be the most interesting and challenging characters to play.

Remember, we played starting in the 70's and if you have played for 20 years you REALLY kind of hanker for some significant hooks to use to differentiate Cleric number 236 from all that preceeded it! lol. Not that you can't do that in many other ways besides the character's stat array, but it seems like it would be nice if that aspect of character differentiation still existed and it really doesn't anymore. At best maybe some builds have a choice of a couple stats for a dump stat, otherwise either the character has to be SERIOUSLY non-optimal or basically a stat clone of every other character with that build.

 

[Garthanos]

It would highly depend on what method of character generation one was using, but with some variation of 4d6 method there was a pretty good chance you would end up with a low low stat. The majority of characters didn't have anything below 8, and there were certainly plenty of rather bland characters out there, but there were also a goodly number that had one (or sometimes even 2 or 3 low stats).

The throw the character out if you don't like it option... got rid of the true out lying cases if I recall.. no 2 or 3 low stats, heck DM's i recall actively discouraged those. Somebody might have kept a character who had a 6, because the character also had an 18 and a 17. But a good majority were way far to the high end middle, shrug. Like I said I think a different mechanic other than stats (disads) needs to be used if you want characters with "character"