Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
Rystil Arden
First Post
LostSoul said:
That sounds about right 
I once made a level-12 venerable elf wizard NPC who had 3 Constitution thanks to his trusty Amulet of Health +4 (so he died if it was ever removed or deactivated). With 12 hit points, less than the level-1 Barbarian, he had good reason to send the PCs out to do tasks for him!
Andor
First Post
Crothian said:
So the monk should not try to fight like the fighter, check. He shouldn't try to sneak like a rouge, check. He should concentrate on staying alive, because that's what he's good at... check.
So the monks role is to live to go back to town and tell everyone about the partys valient last stand?
Or in other words, people should stop trying to use the monk to step on the fighter or rogues toes, because his proper role is to step on the bards toes?
helium3
First Post
Andor said:
Well, the secret side benefit to having a character that isn't the uberest spellcaster or combat fiend in the party is often that you get forced into a role that makes you develop your character more. In my group, my monk was definitely weaker than the other player characters, but all the joking did was make me overcompensate by creating a real personality for the stupid thing. Then it got torn to pieces by an undead troll.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
MAD is a myth.
It's all about player perceptions of what stats you need to be effective, and the related power level of the game. What do you consider an effective stat? 12, 14, 16, 18? If you trend toward the higher numbers, you'll believe in MAD. Or if your DM runs a game where the opponents have high stats, you'll need high stats as well to maintain balance.
But, in a relatively balanced game, let me break it to you -- you don't need any number in any stat, except where the rules force you to (in order to cast spells of a certain level, or qualify for a certain feat). I think this is a carry over from expectations of earlier editions where you didn't get a benefit from a stat until it was 16 or higher, as well as from players who want to be equally good at everything, or to use every ability at its maximum.
Personally, I think it's good for players to have to prioritize what the character is best at, because it helps them work together -- 'cause no one is best at everything. I run a 25-point buy game, and have seen every class played effectively -- to include the so-called "MAD Classes". I've even had characters be very effective with what many would consider to be sub-par stats (paladin with 10 strength, barbarian with low con, etc). It's all about expectations, relative game balance, and working together to use each others strengths and weaknesses.
What really bugs me are the lines in posts that begin "To really be competitive, you need ...". Who are you competing with? Are you keeping score with stats and expecting to win? Last time I checked, this was a cooperative game, and you aren't competing with anyone (except perhaps the monsters, but if your DM knows how to scale encounters appropriately that isn't an issue).
It's all about player perceptions of what stats you need to be effective, and the related power level of the game. What do you consider an effective stat? 12, 14, 16, 18? If you trend toward the higher numbers, you'll believe in MAD. Or if your DM runs a game where the opponents have high stats, you'll need high stats as well to maintain balance.
But, in a relatively balanced game, let me break it to you -- you don't need any number in any stat, except where the rules force you to (in order to cast spells of a certain level, or qualify for a certain feat). I think this is a carry over from expectations of earlier editions where you didn't get a benefit from a stat until it was 16 or higher, as well as from players who want to be equally good at everything, or to use every ability at its maximum.
Personally, I think it's good for players to have to prioritize what the character is best at, because it helps them work together -- 'cause no one is best at everything. I run a 25-point buy game, and have seen every class played effectively -- to include the so-called "MAD Classes". I've even had characters be very effective with what many would consider to be sub-par stats (paladin with 10 strength, barbarian with low con, etc). It's all about expectations, relative game balance, and working together to use each others strengths and weaknesses.
What really bugs me are the lines in posts that begin "To really be competitive, you need ...". Who are you competing with? Are you keeping score with stats and expecting to win? Last time I checked, this was a cooperative game, and you aren't competing with anyone (except perhaps the monsters, but if your DM knows how to scale encounters appropriately that isn't an issue).
JustaPlayer
First Post
I have played a Sorcerer with 5, 14, 9, 9, 10, 16 and made it work. Why, because I but the stats that mattered into what the Sorecerer was good at (Cha) and staying alive (Con). With a 5 Str even if the character got into combat odds were if by some miracle she hit, it was for only 1 point anyway. So, with those kind of stats, just what is the monk good at? What use would they be to the team? I can make a usefull fighter, cleric, rogue, barbarian, heck even a useful bard. With these scores a monk would be subpar in everything he tried to do. He wouldn't be a use because there would always be someone around who could do what he did better, except fall off a building and drink poison. Hey that it! It's the monks job to test all the drinks!
Klaus
First Post
The Monk *can* fight the fighter, but on his own terms. Why should the monk stand there and trade blows like *he* was a fighter? He has better speed, so he should stay mobile. He can fight unarmed, something his opponent probably doesn't, so he should neutralize his opponent's weapon. He can sneak around, so he should strike using surprise.Andor said:
The Monk *can* sneak like a rogue. And faster, too. Focusing on Dex and maxing Hide and Move Silently, he can sneak as well as any rogue. And due to the speed increase, he can sneak around faster, too. He just can't disarm traps, but with his amazing saves, he can probably survive them.
A Monk's role is Reconaissance and Opportunistic Combat. The Rogue's role is Reconaissance, Opportunistic Combat (flanking) and Trap-dealing. The Fighter's role is Primary Combat (high AC, high HP, high attack/damage).
Merlion
First Post
Enemies, and to some extent the other PCs.
that 10 Str Paladin is going to be doing considerably less damage, and hitting less often than the 14 or 16 Str Fighter.
Nobody said anything about maximum. But some class abilities do require minimums. A Paladin with a 10 Cha, or a Monk with a 10 Wis is going to get no good whatsover out of numerous class abilities.
And as melee classes, to be any good at melee they need deccent (not neccesarily super high but deccent) scores in probably two out of the three physical stats.
No, its not. Because...
Some classes have more of these than others. A Fighter for instance has few if any. He can technically swing a weapon etc regardless of his stats...and even as far as feats many of the basic ones require only a 13 to qualify.
Of course, to be especially effective, he's probably going to need at least a good Str and Con.
On the other hand, the Paladin has class abilities that are dependent on Cha, and on Wis. He has to have a positive Cha mod to get any good at all out of Divine Grace, Smite Evil, Lay On Hands. And he needs a 14 Wis to be able to access all of his spells.
And then, to really be effective in combat, he needs deccent Str and Con just like a Fighter.
So yes, some classes have more need of more abilitiy scores than others. Its not a myth, its a fact of the mechanics of the game.
Now how much it matters is largely a matter of opinion.
