D&D 5E Is the stat system biased against front-liners?

[TwoSix]

By all means, please, spell it out for me rather than just hinting.

Fair enough. No one in this thread has reached any sort of consensus as to what defines "effectively function". Until you define those parameters, there will be nothing approaching a consensus on the definition of MAD.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Having read the thread, I'm not really sure where you "show[ed] your work", but sure, I'm game.

By presenting a table-proven example. Not just white-room theory-crafting. My "4-stat MAD" character, built on standard array, is effective and functional. Because MAD doesn't really exist. Maybe if the "D" stood for "desired", I would agree. But "dependent", nah. Can you provide an example character (like I did) that is "SAD"? I can't think of one.

Fighters require Str or Dex to effectively function as a class. Paladins require Str or Dex, as well as Chr, to effectively function as a class. Therefore Paladins are more MAD than Fighters. QED.

Define "require" and "effectively function". And again, do you deny that either of those classes (heck, any class really) would not be perfectly viable in play with no final ability score above a 14 to start with?

Maybe this is an issue of differing definitions? What does "MAD" really mean to you, in the context of 5e? To me it means that you need to have exceptionally high scores in more than one ability to function properly. But if you can play any build with all 10-14 range stats, can anything really be defined as "MAD"?

That seems really clear and unobjectionable to me, and I'm struggling to understand the position that claims it's not true.

Because we are talking about 5e now. Not the last few editions.

 

[procproc]

Fair enough. No one in this thread has reached any sort of consensus as to what defines "effectively function". Until you define those parameters, there will be nothing approaching a consensus on the definition of MAD.

Okay, that's fair.

I think a lot of people are carrying a lot of earlier edition baggage with them about what "MAD" means. Especially on internet forums, a lot of people equated it with bad design, or maybe frustrating design, in 3E. At the end of the day, "MAD" just means "multiple attribute dependency", and it's not an inherently bad thing, especially given 5E's bounded accuracy, stat caps, and reduced opportunities to increase a character's stats through magic.

It's totally reasonable, game-balance-wise, that a paladin may have to accept having lower Str or Con in exchange for higher Chr. What I'm finding confusing is the apparent insistence that, even when a class explicitly has class abilities that key off different stats, that those classes aren't dependent on those attributes. That's not a claim that MAD characters are objectively worse, or less fun to play -- just a claim that the explicit mechanical dependency exists, which seems pretty incontrovertible to me.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...the point that I'm making is that the paladin has more class features that function based on specific stats, and as such, the paladin is more MAD.

To my understanding, the acronym "MAD" stands for "multiple ability score dependent" (emphasis mine).

A class that can use more numerous ability scores to directly influence their class features is only "dependent" if influencing those class features to a significant degree is necessary in order to be an effective character. You've already agreed that isn't the case in 5th edition.

To create some clarity here, In some prior editions the Paladin class was dependent upon more ability scores than the Fighter class was because the Paladin class did not get any use at all from a particular class feature without having a specific ability score at a sufficiently high rating (i.e. no lay on hands and no bonus to saving throws at all unless charisma 12+ in 3.5, or no spells at all unless wisdom 14+). In 5th edition the Paladin has features which are of greater function if they have a higher Charisma, but they all have a minimum built-in so that the class doesn't depend on Charisma in order to have those features.

 

[procproc]

Maybe this is an issue of differing definitions? What does "MAD" really mean to you, in the context of 5e? To me it means that you need to have exceptionally high scores in more than one ability to function properly. But if you can play any build with all 10-14 range stats, can anything really be defined as "MAD"?

Okay, yeah, I think we're talking past each other. As I wrote above, MAD just means you're reliant on multiple different attributes.

That was a big issue in 3e, since stats were uncapped, and increasing any one stat effectively came at the expense of another stat. The fact that you can't go above 20 means at some point -- assuming you're putting all your ASIs into ASIs and not feats -- you're going to hit the stat cap and have to start pumping your other stats, so the opportunity cost is much lower.

So I guess I'd say that MAD definitely still exists, because some classes get more value out of having more stats, but that the problems associated with it (as compared to SAD) have been largely replaced by an interesting tension in leveling up a character due to the design changes in 5e.

 

[procproc]

To my understanding, the acronym "MAD" stands for "multiple ability score dependent" (emphasis mine).

Ha! So this is really all about what's meant by "dependent".

I'd always taken it to mean "dependent" in the sense of "depends on, i.e., is based on the value of". It sounds like other people interpret that as "depends on, i.e., needs to have", which is a reasonable interpretation, but a much more pejorative one.

I posted a lot on the WotC boards around the time the term came into common usage (circa 2003-4?), and I definitely used it as the former, but it seems like it may have evolved to be even more negative over time.

 

[Gimul]

You can absolutely play either of those options.

However, the point that I'm making is that the paladin has more class features that function based on specific stats, and as such, the paladin is more MAD. It sounds like you agree that that's the case, based on the options you presented.

You precede from a false premise. Just because a particular feature is based on a specific stat; doesn't mean that stat needs to be particularly high in order for that class to function. If the stat in question need not be particularly high; there is no opportunity cost to the primary stat, and therefore no MAD.

You would need to show that the feature in question is key to the performance of the class. Spell DC and spell modifier are not key components to paladin performance (generally; it's likely one could build a paladin which relied on these but it would not be typical of the 5e paladin experience).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Get old school enough, and you get MAR = Multiple Attribute Requirement.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ha! So this is really all about what's meant by "dependent".

I'd always taken it to mean "dependent" in the sense of "depends on, i.e., is based on the value of". It sounds like other people interpret that as "depends on, i.e., needs to have", which is a reasonable interpretation, but a much more pejorative one.

I posted a lot on the WotC boards around the time the term came into common usage (circa 2003-4?), and I definitely used it as the former, but it seems like it may have evolved to be even more negative over time.

That very well could be the case (regarding the evolution of usage).

When first seeing the term used, I asked those using it what it referred to and I was given the explanation "It's like how you can be a fighter so long as you have a Strength of 9 or more, and can get an experience bonus if your Strength is 16 or more - that's single ability score dependent - but you can't be a Paladin unless you have Strength 12, Constitution 9, Wisdom 13, and Charisma 17 - that's multiple ability score dependent."

Then in the 3.X era, it seemed clear to me that people were using the term to point out when a class not only wanted the obvious scores higher (i.e. Strength and Constitution if you plan on being a front-line character) but needed to prioritize another score because they wouldn't actually get to use all their class features otherwise.

Because the case was, in my experience, ability scores being used as a "on/off" switch I never thought to consider that someone might be using the term to refer to not just (or not even) those on/off switches but also to features that a character would certain have use of, but a higher score would give more frequent and/or more potent usage.

 

[Zardnaar]

I looked at MAD or multiple ability dependency as when classes had key features keyed off various abilities. A 3E Paladin for example needed some sort of attack stat, wisdom for spell casting and charisma for the Paladin aura and probably a half decent con score as well leaving intelligence and dexterity as dump stat and even then they would want 12 dex for the heavy armor.

3E Monk is another one. People thought weapon finesse monks were decent. They were not but you would want high strenght, high dexterity, high wisdom and a half decent con as you were on the front lines.

You do not get 4 high stats under point buy and default arrays though. I did see the occasional Monk in 3E and Pathfinder that did not suck but they benefited a lot more than most classes if you rolled high ability scores. A fighter can be decent out the gate with 16 strength and 14 con. Apparently with high stats the Pathfinder monk is not to bad.

5E Monks are not quite so stat dependent. I think mine has 18 dex/wisdom after racials and 14 con. rolled a 14, 16 and 17. Also saw a 5E barbarian with near max hit points a 19 strength and 18 con none of which was rolled in front of the DM or any other witnesses. 62 hit points at level 4 is good I hear.

We did not start using a battlemat until 3.5 landed (early 3.0 was a bit like 2E), and we used the default array/point buy for a bit before dumping it and going back to 4d6 drop the lowest. Also tried out the default array in 5E and dumped it due to the same dump stats being used over and over (generally int/charisma and strength for the spellcasters).