MrFilthyIke
First Post
I don't buy the MAD concept. I love the Elite array, and use it in my game. 
Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
Anax
First Post
I've never seen MAD to be a problem. Hell--in my current weekly game, we have a half-orc monk with a Wisdom of 8, and he's quite happy.
I think one half of the "must have multiple high stats" thing is people feeling that they have to play super-optimized characters, with no waste... and that isn't really necessary. If you use a moderate point boy size (25 or 28 or so), then the min-maxers won't get too far away in ability from the people who spread their points out more liberally. In the end, a +1/-1 variation in an ability modifier is not as big a deal as some people seem to think.
The other half is the feeling that if you have an *insert class X* here, you have to be really good at *everything* that class can do. But this just isn't the case: take the half-orc monk, for example. He's focused on Str and Con at the expense of Wis, and kept a moderate Dex. This means that he doesn't get the extra couple of points of AC that a monk with high Wis would get--and if he ever gets Stunning Blow, it won't be as effective as it otherwise could be. But, he didn't take SB. He took improved grappled, combat reflexes, and improved trip. He carries a spiked chain to make use of against squishy enemies (giving up flurry, but making great use of combat reflexes), but more frequently nowadays tends to dive in unarmed and grapple things.
And the grapple and trip is where his high strength approach pays off. He's a grappling *fiend*. Of course, in 3.0 this would be harder.
Anyway, what it comes down to is: there is no MAD problem with any class in 3.5, as far as I can see. The problem is that no character can be good at everything, and every class does actually fulfill multiple roles. You can choose either to perform well at all of those roles (points spread out across the abilities that matter to those roles), or you can choose to specialize.
So: Pick what you want to be strong at, and then choose whether you'd rather focus on your strengths or ameliorate your weaknesses. When people realize that having only a +0 or +1 in Dex doesn't make a monk useless, and that not every paladin and ranger has to have a +2 or better Con modifier, the world will be a better place.
(Heck, my character I've just made for a PbP game here is the first melee type I've made in *ages* that has better than +1 Con--and here, I only did it because 32 point buy gives a lot of wiggle room, and it fits the athleticism of the character.)
I think one half of the "must have multiple high stats" thing is people feeling that they have to play super-optimized characters, with no waste... and that isn't really necessary. If you use a moderate point boy size (25 or 28 or so), then the min-maxers won't get too far away in ability from the people who spread their points out more liberally. In the end, a +1/-1 variation in an ability modifier is not as big a deal as some people seem to think.
The other half is the feeling that if you have an *insert class X* here, you have to be really good at *everything* that class can do. But this just isn't the case: take the half-orc monk, for example. He's focused on Str and Con at the expense of Wis, and kept a moderate Dex. This means that he doesn't get the extra couple of points of AC that a monk with high Wis would get--and if he ever gets Stunning Blow, it won't be as effective as it otherwise could be. But, he didn't take SB. He took improved grappled, combat reflexes, and improved trip. He carries a spiked chain to make use of against squishy enemies (giving up flurry, but making great use of combat reflexes), but more frequently nowadays tends to dive in unarmed and grapple things.
And the grapple and trip is where his high strength approach pays off. He's a grappling *fiend*. Of course, in 3.0 this would be harder.
Anyway, what it comes down to is: there is no MAD problem with any class in 3.5, as far as I can see. The problem is that no character can be good at everything, and every class does actually fulfill multiple roles. You can choose either to perform well at all of those roles (points spread out across the abilities that matter to those roles), or you can choose to specialize.
So: Pick what you want to be strong at, and then choose whether you'd rather focus on your strengths or ameliorate your weaknesses. When people realize that having only a +0 or +1 in Dex doesn't make a monk useless, and that not every paladin and ranger has to have a +2 or better Con modifier, the world will be a better place.
(Heck, my character I've just made for a PbP game here is the first melee type I've made in *ages* that has better than +1 Con--and here, I only did it because 32 point buy gives a lot of wiggle room, and it fits the athleticism of the character.)
Arkhandus
First Post
Crothian said:
Then what are they, Crothian? If not support frontliners and support sneaks, what the hell are monks for other than watching their less-magic-resistant allies drop like flies and then running away to waste the party's funds on many Raise Deads just because the monks are of little help in combat?
The monk cannot sneak as well as a rogue or ranger. He does not have the awareness skills and the skill points for movement skills on top of that. The monk may have Climb, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, and even Jump or Swim if he's human or has above-average Intelligence (as if he could even afford that luxury). But what good is he at sneaking and scouting, when he can't make good use of Spot and Listen to find enemies, Search and Disable Device to get past traps in the villain's manor/dungeon/lair, Open Lock to get past barriers without the noisy racket of breaking through violently, Bluff and Disguise and/or Forgery to get past the few guarded areas that are impossible to sneak through undetected, Read Lips (is that covered by Sense Motive in 3.5? No matter, the monk's shortchanged on skill points anyway) to observe (from a safe distance) the villains making their plans, or Wilderness Lore to track down the enemies while scouting?
The monk cannot always support or replace rangers and rogues as a scout or sneak. He doesn't have their special sneaking-related class features anyway, such as the ranger's Camouflage and whatnot, or the rogue's Skill Mastery and potential Skill Focus bonus feats (one of the roguish special ability options is a bonus feat, after all).
The monk also cannot be a highly-effective frontline combatant, as you keep saying, but he should at least be decent at frontline combat support. Sure, the monk's main role is that of the survivor, however at odds that may be with his poor AC and mediocre HP. He just doesn't survive very well against normal opponents, as in the non-magic-using kind. And he can hardly hit very well. UNLESS the monk has all-around great Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom scores. Only then can the monk effectively fill the melee support role. With high Constitution, or Dexterity and Wisdom, he could instead decently fill a survivor/ranged support role. But still, the monk is dependant on high ability scores to be effective at anything. Otherwise he's either ineffective at everything (incapable of spellcasting too), or he's barely useful in one very specialized support role and sucks horribly at everything else.
The monk only does two things well. Move a lot and survive a lot of special attacks, such as spells. Neither really helps win a battle, unless you're the party cleric and thus able to keep restoring the other party members to functionality after suffering status afflictions, but monks aren't clerics.
DM_Matt
First Post
Arkhandus said:
Agreed. Monks are best at getting stupid opponents to bother wasting actions to kill them rather than focusing on someone who may actually be a threat. They are effective front line fighters because they DO equal the fighters damage output if you add their damage output to the output of the fighter on the additional rounds of combat the monk buys him by getting beat up first.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Regarding Monks - I have an extremely effective front line fighter monk, by dint of using a 1st level feat to take martial proficiency glaive, and getting the 2nd level bonus feat combat reflexes. His primary attribute is strength. 1d10/x3 with reach, unarmed flurry when up close, standard tactics include strike then tumble out of range to re-establish his reach benefit and so forth (plus power attack and cleave). He was a kick-butt fighter with a so-so AC, then he multiclassed with psychic warrior and woo-hoo!
Regarding MAD. I believe that it does exist because there are some classes (the classic 4) where you could just concentrate on a single attribute to become iconically good in the class; typically not true of other classes. You don't have to concentrate on Str for a fighter, but you can become a jolly good fighter by doing just that. Same with Dex for rogues or Int with wizards. Other classes (paladin, ranger, monk, bard etc) have a much harder choice of where to place their attribute bonuses IMX.
Cheers
Regarding MAD. I believe that it does exist because there are some classes (the classic 4) where you could just concentrate on a single attribute to become iconically good in the class; typically not true of other classes. You don't have to concentrate on Str for a fighter, but you can become a jolly good fighter by doing just that. Same with Dex for rogues or Int with wizards. Other classes (paladin, ranger, monk, bard etc) have a much harder choice of where to place their attribute bonuses IMX.
Cheers
Varianor Abroad
Explorer
The heart of the argument is that many players like choices, hate restrictions, and enjoy a specific niche or shtick within the party. Paladins and monks restrict those choices by requiring more statistics, offering a less well-defined role or a heavily restricted role, and providing a narrow, specific archetype to play.
diaglo
Adventurer
it comes from the original concepts for the class.Crothian said:
Greyhawk Supplement I paladin had a high cha stat to qualify. thus the original PrC class. as such it should still be considered one.
same with the Monk, Assassin, Illusionist, Ranger...etc..
only the Cleric, Fighting Man, Magic User, and then later Thief did not have a prereq to qualify. although, they each had a primary stat that helped them with experience bonus.
Klaus
First Post
Maybe Monks should have Weapon Finesse as an additional option of bonus feat at 1st level. That way, if you want a Str-based Monk, you choose Improved Grapple. If you want a Dex-based Monk, you choose Weapon Finesse. And if you want a Wis-based Monk, you choose Stunning Fist.
As for role in the party, the Monk is a Reconaissance/Opportunistic Combat expert. He gets Hide/Move Silently/Climb/Jump as class skills, and their Wis is often high enough to provide a bonus to Spot/Listen (not to mention ranks). Jump doesn't need many ranks, since the eventual speed increase will put Jump through the roof. The increased speed also means Monks can use Hide/Move Silently at a faster pace than other characters. As for Opportunistic Combat, he excels at picking his targets from those his allies are engaging. Kinda like the same deal of a rogue, who excels at flanking foes.
As for role in the party, the Monk is a Reconaissance/Opportunistic Combat expert. He gets Hide/Move Silently/Climb/Jump as class skills, and their Wis is often high enough to provide a bonus to Spot/Listen (not to mention ranks). Jump doesn't need many ranks, since the eventual speed increase will put Jump through the roof. The increased speed also means Monks can use Hide/Move Silently at a faster pace than other characters. As for Opportunistic Combat, he excels at picking his targets from those his allies are engaging. Kinda like the same deal of a rogue, who excels at flanking foes.
