Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[Crothian]

Multiple Ability Dependance (MAD) seems to be this idea that people believe but I don't. People claim there are classes especially the Monk and the Paladin it seems that need a lot of abilities to be high to be a worthwhile character. I don't buy it. I think people are using it as an excuse to only play characters with high stats or as an excuse to not play certain classes. I think the standard array as shown in the DMG and in the NPC write ups in there shows that it works for all classes.

So, where does this MAD idea really come from? Am I alone on my island with this thought and the whole d20 world has accepted this? Or is it really a small band of rebels that just won't let this go?

 

[Nightfall]

My only thought is this:

You need to give me like 13,000 posts from your post count Crothy.

I need em!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Multiple Ability Dependance (MAD) seems to be this idea that people believe but I don't.

I saw it most often discussed with psionics 3.0. If you knew anything about psionics you knew how terrible MAD was (both underpowered and overpowered at the same time, which is a difficult mistake to make).

People claim there are classes especially the Monk and the Paladin it seems that need a lot of abilities to be high to be a worthwhile character. I don't buy it.

In an Eberron campaign I'm a player in, we don't have a straight fighter. We do have a lawful neutral* elven paladin who put most of his points into Dex at the expense of ... well, everything else. I think his Charisma is only 13. It doesn't seem to hurt him at all, however.

I think people are using it as an excuse to only play characters with high stats

That's up to the DM.

or as an excuse to not play certain classes.

So? Some classes really do suck - like the monk - at least for certain people. And, of course, it's alright not to like a class. If lots of people don't like a class, then maybe it's not the people who are the problem.

I don't think the problem with the monk is MAD, but it's easy to put your finger on that, rather than the monk lottery problem, or the natural/unarmed strike/magic item problem, or the [long rant - I might leave that for another thread].

* The DM wanted to make playing paladins actually possible. The code was also relaxed so you didn't have to an uptight Vulcan.

I think the standard array as shown in the DMG and in the NPC write ups in there shows that it works for all classes.

Maybe. Alas, some of the examples in the DMG suck. I think the rogue is among the worst examples, but MAD isn't the problem there

Come to think of it, the rogue PC example in Enemies and Allies really sucked, too. They did realize there was a feat called Weapon Finesse, right?

 

[demiurge1138]

Not really. Monk and paladin do benefit more from multiple high scores than some other classes do, but they're still playable with lower scores. Now, 3.0 psionics really did suffer from MAD, and I think that some people just liked complaining about it so much that it became a part of their vocabulary, even once psionics got fixed.

Demiurge out.

 

[Nightfall]

True.

3.0 psionics suck. 3.5 way better.

Course a paladin with decent/above averge scores in many areas DO help out more than below/just average. But doesn't mean they aren't unplayable, certainly if you spend enough gold to get enhancement bonuses in some fashion.

 

[Kirin'Tor]

I'm with Crothy, (MAD) is something people use as an excuse not to play classes who's flavor or mechanics they don't like...I've even heard "my stats aren't good enough to play a wizard, my highest is 16..."

Now, Any class will benefit from having lots of high scores, even the most basic: fighter. Yeah, you can build a good fighter with just good STR, but CON means HP, DEX means AC, and int/wis/cha all affect skills.

 

[Crothian]

True.

3.0 psionics suck. 3.5 way better.

Course a paladin with decent/above averge scores in many areas DO help out more than below/just average. But doesn't mean they aren't unplayable, certainly if you spend enough gold to get enhancement bonuses in some fashion.

Well, we are talking about the core classes, and its something got fixed. So, it sort of fails to be relevant anymore. Many classes should be able to take advantage of high abiality scores. But I want to focus on the need, not the ability to use.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In order for a paladin to do decent damage, he should have good strength. It's not essential though - he can just pick up a nice big weapon and do his thing that way. To cast spells, he needs a moderate wisdom. He should avoid a bad con, but his d10 hit die means it's not a massive issue. He should try to have a good charisma, but if he doesn't, it's not that big a deal. He can slap on a suit of armour and go at it, and that means that his dex won't help him a huge amount past about 13. It's nice to have skills, but a paladin doesn't rely on them too much, so a low int doesn't really hurt.

In order for a monk to do decent damage, he NEEDS strength. In order for him to have a combat-worthy AC, he NEEDS wisdom and dexterity. In order for him to compete with other frontline classes, he NEEDS constitution. In order for him to complement the rogue at sneaking - dex again.

In fact, just about all he doesn't need is charisma.

This isn't really a problem with MAD. It's a problem with monks sucking.

 

[Nightfall]

Crothy,

So what about that trade in post count eh?

 

[Crothian]

Crothy,

So what about that trade in post count eh?

What am I getting in return? Why do you need them? and specifically which 13,000 do you want?