Impact of "fixing" the MAD classes?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting question Capn. I think the Ranger is a bit of a different case than the others. For one thing there are more "dual use" powers, like Twin Strike for Rangers. Since the two Ranger builds are also REALLY distinct in how they operate this worked out good for that class, they can use the same power and yet really it produces significantly different characters based on the same mechanics. If the same thing had been done with say the paladin, then you would basically have 2 paladins that played exactly the same, but just had different names for their primary stat.

And that really is my objection to Sadrik's solution. It will certainly "fix" the equalization between the classes. The problem is it will do so at the cost of all differentiation between them. Maybe not all, they will have different MC opportunities and there will still be some slight distinctions in the powers from attribute bonuses in the effect blocks. They'll also qualify for some different feats. My guess is one or the other option will simply be superior enough that the other option will virtually cease to exist.

My other objection is basically the aesthetic objection. There should be more to a stat than just a name. Strong characters hit hard. Dexterous characters are quick. Intelligent characters are well, intelligent. If you just make the stats into interchangeable plug-in numbers, then what do they actually mean? It could work fine in a game mechanics sense, but I think it erodes player's sense of what their character is. They become more of a 'bag of numbers' than they are now.

The other part of what Sadrik has been complaining about, the 'twinning' of stat pairs based on defenses is a rather unfortunate consequence of the three defenses. Given that the three defenses are so deeply embedded in the game mechanics, they are just not going away anytime soon. How could it be solved? The only way I can see would be to let a player decide at character creation which stats contribute to which defense. This at least could be fluffed as different styles of training. Maybe each defense has a fixed 'primary' stat, Con for FORT, DEX for REF, and WIS for WILL. Then the player could decide "well, I'll pair STR together with DEX for reflex, my character has learned to use power to make him fast", etc. I don't have any idea what the implications are for balance between the classes and races, but it would work in a broad sense and it offends my sensibilities less than the "modular power stats" idea. I suspect only a few combinations would prove really beneficial, probably pretty much determined by what class you want to be when considering primary and secondary stats and for other dump type stats the choice is likely to be mostly arbitrary (does the fighter care if int and cha were to be reversed for defenses calculations? I doubt it).

There is another nice advantage of switchable defenses stats, it just plain doesn't have any consequences for existing characters. They simply go on about their lives as they are now, and neither gain or lose anything.

 

[Sadrik]

To me, "fixing" these four classes will probably do more harm than good.

Explain this please.

We already agree these classes aren't less powerful than other classes (on average), they're less versatile with fewer options.

So the problem is that they are boring, not weak, yes?

Then the solution isn't to remove MAD, but to give more powers.

I think when they were designing the classes their intent was to not have the character be an OR statement but rather an AND statement. More succinctly I think they wanted the ranger to be a two weapon fighter AND an archer not one or the other. In actual play this is not the case most people treat it as an OR statement due to the reliance on the uni-bloated stat assumption built into the system (two 16s is not the same as a prime 20). Will treating these four 1/2 classes as two separate classes solve the issue? To some extent. So are you going to publish twice the number of powers to make each 1/2 become a whole? I think not. They will always be behind the curve.

And that really is my objection to Sadrik's solution. It will certainly "fix" the equalization between the classes. The problem is it will do so at the cost of all differentiation between them.

This is a fundamental issue with these classes though, are you saying that the differentiation will be less because you are allowing the player to pick between all of their powers. In other words you think that the fighter, wizard, rogue and warlord are less differentiated because they are not cut in 1/2? I think this is patently false. The difference is that you are letting the game designer design your classes power selection in one case and allowing the player select their power selection in the other.

My other objection is basically the aesthetic objection. There should be more to a stat than just a name. Strong characters hit hard. Dexterous characters are quick. Intelligent characters are well, intelligent. If you just make the stats into interchangeable plug-in numbers, then what do they actually mean? It could work fine in a game mechanics sense, but I think it erodes player's sense of what their character is. They become more of a 'bag of numbers' than they are now.

4e fiat is any stat = any function. It written into the core assumptions of the game. This is not something that I thought needed to be argued. INT can be used to dodge blows, STR to resist poison INT to make your basic attacks, and CON to target eldritch blasts. They are "bags of numbers" and have no more meaning than applying the right one at the right time. This is shift from prior editions but it is a hump you have to get over to fully appreciate 4e. I have.

The other part of what Sadrik has been complaining about, the 'twinning' of stat pairs based on defenses is a rather unfortunate consequence of the three defenses.

Stat polarity is my major gripe with the 4e underpinning rules. If you want to call it complaining, so be it, it doesn't make it any less real of a problem. It disproportional polarizes your stat placement into polarizing the three pairs in a not natural way.

How could it be solved? The only way I can see would be to let a player decide at character creation which stats contribute to which defense.

Precisely where I arrived as well.

This at least could be fluffed as different styles of training. Maybe each defense has a fixed 'primary' stat, Con for FORT, DEX for REF, and WIS for WILL. Then the player could decide "well, I'll pair STR together with DEX for reflex, my character has learned to use power to make him fast", etc.

This is exactly my proposed "fix". The only difference is that there is no need to make a pair, you only need the high card . Basically if you are taking the top 3 stats no need to even address the bottom three.

There is another nice advantage of switchable defenses stats, it just plain doesn't have any consequences for existing characters. They simply go on about their lives as they are now, and neither gain or lose anything.

Agreed it is pretty seamless. In some cases they may pop a defense up by a point or two, but only in the case where they doubled up their stat points in one of the stat polarities (DEX and INT wizard for example). This "fix" does fly in the face of your aesthetic objection above, but really I think that is just a hurdle as I explained above.

 

[keterys]

I'm trying out my first game using the house rule of having attacks standardized to Half Level + 5, with additional +1s at (5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, 25th) and I was quite pleased to see one of the characters have a much more mixed set of stats and that the paladin was able to take a mix of Str and Cha powers without undue cost. It also made multiclass far more viable... I mean, a halfling swordmage with a fey warlock multiclass (makes perfect sense in the game, but statistically without that rule it'd be pretty horrible)!?

I'd love to see rangers that mix up melee and ranged, instead of being entirely one or the other. I think the easiest way is to go with making it all based on Dex, though my houserule would work to a certain extent as well. I think it's ridiculous that I just levelled a warlock to 5 and had 8 power options... 6 of which used Charisma (I'm a Con warlock). That character would _love_ to take Otherwind Stride, even at lower damage or some penalty other than 'You completely miss'. Eh.

 

[Garthanos]

4e fiat is any stat = any function. It written into the core assumptions of the game. This is not something that I thought needed to be argued. INT can be used to dodge blows, STR to resist poison INT to make your basic attacks, and CON to target eldritch blasts. They are "bags of numbers" and have no more meaning than applying the right one at the right time. This is shift from prior editions but it is a hump you have to get over to fully appreciate 4e. I have.

I think of it as Winners playing to their strengths... and not as irrational as you make it sound. Though I too had to come around to accept it,once digested its rather part of the coolness (anybody want some coolaid).

And speaking of the defensive polarity and making sense. I think there is some real polarity in real people and some of it corresponds to the defensive groupings IMO.

1)IRL people biologically can't have the best burst strength and best stamina... the two involve distinct muscle cell types. This is the most obvious parallel because it involves measurable things.

2) Discipline and Spirit are similarly a question of emphasis rather like doing the right thing version doing your own thing, which do you prefer. It parallels wisdom and charisma for Will Power.

3) The last is harder but it could be looking toward the future (INT).. planning ahead (why it doesn't help as much in a surprise round because you don't have a basis for planning on) versus acting immediately in the now (DEX)

4) There is also some polarity in real life being introverted (INT / WIS) or extroverted(DEX / CHA) --- so there is an emphasis between internal environment and internal one.

I know Sadrik you think I try too hard... I think you give up too easy. ;-)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I just totally disagree with you Sadrik on the subject of the significance of stats. I think you're getting WAY too far into number land and your view of the game is disconnected from what it is supposed to be about. From a game mechanics standpoint numbers are just numbers, but from a standpoint of player's identification with their characters and their visceral understanding of how their character works they are NOT just numbers! When you treat them that way you destroy the sense of belief of the player in their character, and that is really just bad for your game.

Now, do I think that there should be some tyrannically exact interpretation of each stat? No. As I suggested with defenses, it won't break believability MUCH if we were to allow STR, INT, and WIS to be reallocated to any defense, and if you look at it, that actually is ALL you need to solve all of your stat problems. Any combination of stats is now reasonably viable from a standpoint of having fairly balanced defenses. Maybe it is a bit of a real stretch to imagine STR contributing to WILL, but I'll live with that tiny bit of imperfection in return for what it gains players in terms of making the character they want.

But to just say that every stat is good for 'whatever' is not ever going to fly in my campaign, it just takes away too much in other ways, no matter what you think it adds in terms of better game mechanics. I also don't think it really adds all that much.

This is a fundamental issue with these classes though, are you saying that the differentiation will be less because you are allowing the player to pick between all of their powers. In other words you think that the fighter, wizard, rogue and warlord are less differentiated because they are not cut in 1/2? I think this is patently false. The difference is that you are letting the game designer design your classes power selection in one case and allowing the player select their power selection in the other.

I didn't mean that it destroys all differentiation between Warlock and a Ranger, etc. But it does destroy ALL diffentiation between warlock builds. Literally 100% of it. Maybe a bit less than 100% if you consider some of the extra 'riders' that are ability based, but since at this point you don't really have any reason for a player not to spread some stat points around it is pretty easy for a warlock to be basically just as good at all warlock powers. The differential is certainly small.

Beyond that it seems to me there is a bit of a have your cake and eat it too here. Why should a given character have ALL possible options? The price of being really good at one set of things IS that you forclose certain other options. I don't think that is really such a bad thing. Same goes with melee vs archer rangers. If you are an expert archer, you just can't really be the tip top guy with a sword. Remember, even a staff wizard at 5th level is still 10x better than any normal person, better even than a 1st level fighter with a sword. Just not good enough to tangle with a level 5 monster using it. I'm pretty much OK with that.

In any case I won't be doing things like letting people switch melee attacks from STR to DEX etc. It just degrades the role playing aspect of the game IMHO.

 

[KarinsDad]

And that really is my objection to Sadrik's solution. It will certainly "fix" the equalization between the classes. The problem is it will do so at the cost of all differentiation between them. Maybe not all, they will have different MC opportunities and there will still be some slight distinctions in the powers from attribute bonuses in the effect blocks. They'll also qualify for some different feats. My guess is one or the other option will simply be superior enough that the other option will virtually cease to exist.

If this were true, then all A shaped class PCs would all be the same. Since this is not the case, your objection here appears to be inaccurate.

My other objection is basically the aesthetic objection. There should be more to a stat than just a name. Strong characters hit hard. Dexterous characters are quick. Intelligent characters are well, intelligent. If you just make the stats into interchangeable plug-in numbers, then what do they actually mean? It could work fine in a game mechanics sense, but I think it erodes player's sense of what their character is. They become more of a 'bag of numbers' than they are now.

This objection doesn't hold water either. If one takes this position, one should be shouting that Chaladins do not make sense because their to hit is based on their personality. WT? WotC ignored that.

Either one stays in the objective numbers world to solve the problem, or one goes into the subjective "what does Dex mean" world and that opens up all kinds of cans of worms.

WotC already made the stats into interchangeable plug-in numbers in many many nonsensical examples. Wisdom can decide how far someone is slide back. Or, Constitution can decide that. Any ability score in the game can determine how far an opponent slides, even though many of them do not make any rational sense.

The other part of what Sadrik has been complaining about, the 'twinning' of stat pairs based on defenses is a rather unfortunate consequence of the three defenses. Given that the three defenses are so deeply embedded in the game mechanics, they are just not going away anytime soon. How could it be solved? The only way I can see would be to let a player decide at character creation which stats contribute to which defense.

There are many solutions to this problem. Allowing 3 ability scores to increase instead of 2 handles the defense delta problem.

Sadrik's solution is not attempting to resolve that, so this objection to his solution is non-sequitor. His solution is trying to solve the V problem and it is a fairly simple and elegant solution. The only problem with it, IMO, is that it requires a feat.

Personally, I would not have it require a feat since A shaped PCs do not have that problem and hence would gain a feat. If I considered it a problem with my game, I would just flat out give it to any player who wants it for his PC.

Yeah, I just totally disagree with you Sadrik on the subject of the significance of stats. I think you're getting WAY too far into number land and your view of the game is disconnected from what it is supposed to be about.

One could use this argument to disagree with any house rule.

From a game mechanics standpoint numbers are just numbers, but from a standpoint of player's identification with their characters and their visceral understanding of how their character works they are NOT just numbers! When you treat them that way you destroy the sense of belief of the player in their character, and that is really just bad for your game.

Except that he is not doing this. He is saying "What's inherently wrong with having Enfeebling Strike hit with Strength instead of Charisma?"

Answer: nothing.

If WotC would have made Enfeebling Strike Str based and Holy Strike Cha based, nobody would have batted an eye. Nobody would have claimed: it makes more sense from a "sense of belief" perspective to switch them.

That is effectively what your disagreement here indicates. That WotC did it the one and only proper way and the fix here destroys that.

I disagree. I think WotC got wrapped up into the concept of "two different types" of many core classes and realized in latter books that this concept handcuffs players more than it benefits the game system.

It really is much of a minor detail as to which stat you use, except if it is a choice then the choice is clear, nobody would CHOOSE to be a Chaladin since WIS and CHA stack on WILL defense and STR is kind of that stat that anyone who ever swings a weapon at all pretty much has a use for.

I do agree with you on this. With Sadrik's solution, nobody who optimizes their PC would take a Chaladin. And my response to this would be, err, so what?

What is so special about a Chaladin other than the fact that the 4E core rules allowed the concept to exist? It never really existed in previous versions of DND other than as a minimum stat requirement. It's a brand new character concept that frankly, is no better or worse than any other and does not have to be in the game system. If someone really wanted a Chaladin, they could still take it with Sadrik's solution.

Just like the Tiefling Rogue in our game with a Dex 16 is possible. Not optimal, but playable and enjoyed by the player playing her.


Today, nobody takes an 18 Str Rogue.

An 18 Str Rogue makes a lot of sense, much more than a Chaladin. But even with Brawny Rogue, the game system handcuffs players into taking a high Dex Rogue.

It all depends on whether the DM and players contemplating Sadrik's solution think that the V shaped problem is so glaring that they are willing to drop the concept of an optimized Chaladin to fix it.

Sadrik's solution making Chaladin's sub-optimal is no different than WotC's solution making 18 or 20 Str Brawny Rogues sub-optimal. I don't see you ragging on WotC for doing that.


The argument "that's not how WotC did it" is fairly weak.

 

[Sadrik]

I'm trying out my first game using the house rule of having attacks standardized to Half Level + 5, with additional +1s at (5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, 25th) and I was quite pleased to see one of the characters have a much more mixed set of stats and that the paladin was able to take a mix of Str and Cha powers without undue cost.

I think this is an excellent alternative option. However, it could be considered too switcheroo for some. The notion of having a nebulous attack stat that is attached to nothing except your level, could be difficult for some to latch on to conceptually (as mearly using your powers with different stats is hard for some to conceptualize).

I think of it as Winners playing to their strengths... and not as irrational as you make it sound. Though I too had to come around to accept it,once digested its rather part of the coolness (anybody want some coolaid).

I think you have the appropriate way of defining the 4e switcheroo effect. In the past when I have written it, I often make it seem as absurd as possible so in case some one has a problem with it I can make a point of saying your wrong. That is kind of irrational in and of itself. Sorry for that.

I know Sadrik you think I try too hard... I think you give up too easy. ;-)

Lol, at times. But then again I can only spend so much time on ENworld...

Yeah, I just totally disagree with you Sadrik on the subject of the significance of stats. I think you're getting WAY too far into number land and your view of the game is disconnected from what it is supposed to be about. From a game mechanics standpoint numbers are just numbers, but from a standpoint of player's identification with their characters and their visceral understanding of how their character works they are NOT just numbers! When you treat them that way you destroy the sense of belief of the player in their character, and that is really just bad for your game.

What you are replying to, in every case those are actual game effects. These are not some virtual reality that I conjured up. All of those cases actually do exist in the game. If you think that by making a feat that allows the ranger to use DEX for his STR based powers is too much "bag of numbers" or a Warlock targeting with CHA instead of CON and CHA if this is too disconnecting, I am not sure you are playing the right game.

Even in the defense thing we talked about, if you think it is too hard to imagine dodging/deflecting a blow with you WIS instead of your INT. I mean really...

Maybe it is a bit of a real stretch to imagine STR contributing to WILL, but I'll live with that tiny bit of imperfection in return for what it gains players in terms of making the character they want.

I totally agree. The 4e switcheroo effect is already there. In effect this is only to affect a better more open game. Overall, I take a different bent in game design than the 4e designers, restrictions and requirements suck. Especially those made from a construct such as the defense stat polarities.

But to just say that every stat is good for 'whatever' is not ever going to fly in my campaign, it just takes away too much in other ways, no matter what you think it adds in terms of better game mechanics. I also don't think it really adds all that much.

I think where the mechanics are not concerned, stats are very important for characters and how players can role-play their characters. Nothing is taken away from the charismatic guy who use that to dodge blows, in fact that is even cooler because I instantly see a swashbuckler who uses his wit and repartee to his advantage.

I didn't mean that it destroys all differentiation between Warlock and a Ranger, etc. But it does destroy ALL diffentiation between warlock builds. Literally 100% of it. Maybe a bit less than 100% if you consider some of the extra 'riders' that are ability based, but since at this point you don't really have any reason for a player not to spread some stat points around it is pretty easy for a warlock to be basically just as good at all warlock powers. The differential is certainly small.

I am not conceptualizing your point here. Are you saying, that you prefer that the four of the classes are cut in 1/2? I think that you will find that the three warlock types will actually be more varied using the feat/added rule regardless of the rider effects.

If you are an expert archer, you just can't really be the tip top guy with a sword.

I guess the point here is why not let the player decide which of the powers they want, if they want to be the super archer they will take all power relating to their bow. Sword specialist --> sword powers. And a third variety that is not viable now - a little bit of sword and a little bit of bow. Bottom line is yeah if the player picks all bow powers he wont be good with a sword and vice versa. The player has made a choice for their character to be that way. Not some arbitrary "V" (whatever that is).

In any case I won't be doing things like letting people switch melee attacks from STR to DEX etc. It just degrades the role playing aspect of the game IMHO.

I am afraid to break it to you but this is already a feature of the game.

 

[Garthanos]

I am afraid to break it to you but this is already a feature of the game.

And Heck Dex is the easiest to understand, it corresponds directly to much that I learned in my Martial Arts Training (remove the word Arts in that sentence then let it roll around for a bit)

 

[Starfox]

I recall playing Champions back in the day. It was in many ways an excellent game, but to me, it had some glaring errors. One of those errors was the lack of tastiness of Energy Blast. Basically, energy blast could be anything - from fire, cold, and electricity to purple, red and popcorn. If this specification was to have any effect or give any limitation, you had to invent one. This sounds wondrously liberating, but to me it made the whole concept seem unreal - you were not firing fore bolts, you were firing virtual constructs that did damage. It went over my suspension of disbelief threshold.

Now, this is not about Champions. I bet we have Champions-lovers on these boards, and this is not an attack on them, just my personal view. What I am trying to say is that there is such a threshold with attributes in 4E too. I can live with the bard making melee attacks with Charisma and the Swordmage with Int - but it is stretching things. When I tried to look at making the Cleric an A class instead of a V class (or is it the reverse?) I ended up with Wis-based melee attacks that had a healing secondary effect based on Str. That was to go to far - I dropped my straight-conversion project.

I don't mind attribute exchange per se, but unless the attributes are to become meaningless, it must be done with a certain restraint.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I recall playing Champions back in the day. It was in many ways an excellent game, but to me, it had some glaring errors. One of those errors was the lack of tastiness of Energy Blast. Basically, energy blast could be anything - from fire, cold, and electricity to purple, red and popcorn. If this specification was to have any effect or give any limitation, you had to invent one. This sounds wondrously liberating, but to me it made the whole concept seem unreal - you were not firing fore bolts, you were firing virtual constructs that did damage. It went over my suspension of disbelief threshold.

Champions made much more sense to me as soon as I realised that you could/should use the disadvantages system to more accurately model the kind of energy blast. For instance, flame blasts that come out of the hands that don't work when wet (+1/4) and have an obvious inaccessible focus (pointing hands) (+1/4). This made the power slightly cheaper to purchase, but gave the DM interesting options for hampering the player (such as when the sprinkler system in the building goes off, or the brick kicks over the fire hydrant).

That was the glory of champions (at least champions 1, when I played it) - the vanilla background gave lots of opportunities to add flavour through appropriate restrictions.

I'm trying out my first game using the house rule of having attacks standardized to Half Level + 5, with additional +1s at (5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, 25th) and I was quite pleased to see one of the characters have a much more mixed set of stats

A very interesting solution. Presumably you applied that to damage as well? Presumably ability scores were then only really significant for skills, for secondary effects from powers and that sort of thing?

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.

I suppose a lot depends upon the era you played in. My first characters were all from the 3d6 rolled in order era, and one of them lasted right up to 3e times (although the druid with 6 Con and 4 Cha (or something similar) just *couldn't* be converted to 3e and remain viable!)

I remember that 16 Str used to give you +1 hit and damage at one point, 14-15 was just +1 hit or something like that. Only in the upper echelons of %age Str did bonuses get large.

I do agree that in those days ability scores were largely a matter of providing roleplaying hooks for the PC rather than being vital for their success as adventurers. I'm rather sorry to realise that stage is probably over!

Cheers