Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[JustaPlayer]

Actually about 80%

Only 19.something percent said they dont thing any class has an MAD at all.

Yeah Mer, I'm sorry, I was only looking at the one catagory. I guess all 80% must be power gamers eh.

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 remeber, these special abilities are what a Palidin gets in place of fighter feats. So if you don't have the scores to power the abilities why not just take a fighter? And don't tell me a full plate wearing person is not suppose to get in close combat. Maybe the honorable Palidin can let the fighter handle all the tough work and only go after the weaker guys because that's what honorable Palidins do.

 

[Andor]

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.

The trouble is that this all sounds great, but the mechanics of the system don't support it.

If the monk is staying mobile that means either he is sucking AOOs like nobodys business, or he has spent three feats to gain the ability to fight without using his flurry of blows. And it has been pointed out a monk trading blow for blow with a fighter is a dead monk.

He can't take away his opponents weapon, unless he has spent even more feats to avoid those deadly AOOs, and then his hands are light weapons, so he'll be at -4 to -8 taking the weapon away from a characer who almost certainly has higher strength in the first place.

And sneaking around so he can attack by surprise gains him no mechanical benefit since he A) has no sneak attack and B) Can't power attack since his hands are light weapons.

Since this isn't the 'monks suck' thread lets bring this back into perspective.

A monk can stay alive by running away but this in point of fact does nothing to benefit his party. Since he has no spells or support abilities the only thing the monk can do is fight. Due to his mediocre BAB and light fists he needs better strength than a fighter to able to fight as well. Due to his d8 hp he needs better con than the fighter to have the same staying power. Due to his inability to wear armour he needs better dex than the rogue to match his AC (and the rogue has more utility both in and out of combat than a monk does.) If he wants to use pretty much any of his class abilities he also needs a decent wis.

You can claim the monk doesn't have MAD all you want, but it's patent foolishness. The question is not 'Can I play a monk with poor stats?' Obviously you can. You can play an awakened Chihuahua with levels in commoner if you want to. The question is 'Is the monk an effective charactar with poor stats?' And the answer to that is no.

The trouble is that out of the box the monk is only good at one thing, and that is being the mage killer. And that is too narrow a role to be truly useful. And in order to branch out from that role, the mechanical system of the game demands good stats in order to be effective.

16,10,10,10,10,10 is a viable stat array for any of the base 4 classes. A monk with those stats should spend his spare time carving his tombstone.

 

[Merlion]

The trouble is that this all sounds great, but the mechanics of the system don't support it.

If the monk is staying mobile that means either he is sucking AOOs like nobodys business, or he has spent three feats to gain the ability to fight without using his flurry of blows. And it has been pointed out a monk trading blow for blow with a fighter is a dead monk.

He can't take away his opponents weapon, unless he has spent even more feats to avoid those deadly AOOs, and then his hands are light weapons, so he'll be at -4 to -8 taking the weapon away from a characer who almost certainly has higher strength in the first place.

And sneaking around so he can attack by surprise gains him no mechanical benefit since he A) has no sneak attack and B) Can't power attack since his hands are light weapons.

Since this isn't the 'monks suck' thread lets bring this back into perspective.

A monk can stay alive by running away but this in point of fact does nothing to benefit his party. Since he has no spells or support abilities the only thing the monk can do is fight. Due to his mediocre BAB and light fists he needs better strength than a fighter to able to fight as well. Due to his d8 hp he needs better con than the fighter to have the same staying power. Due to his inability to wear armour he needs better dex than the rogue to match his AC (and the rogue has more utility both in and out of combat than a monk does.) If he wants to use pretty much any of his class abilities he also needs a decent wis.

You can claim the monk doesn't have MAD all you want, but it's patent foolishness. The question is not 'Can I play a monk with poor stats?' Obviously you can. You can play an awakened Chihuahua with levels in commoner if you want to. The question is 'Is the monk an effective charactar with poor stats?' And the answer to that is no.

The trouble is that out of the box the monk is only good at one thing, and that is being the mage killer. And that is too narrow a role to be truly useful. And in order to branch out from that role, the mechanical system of the game demands good stats in order to be effective.

16,10,10,10,10,10 is a viable stat array for any of the base 4 classes. A monk with those stats should spend his spare time carving his tombstone.

I dont think the real issue here is wether MAD exists or not, because it does if you look at the mechanics. I think the issue is its relevence. Crothian doesnt consider it relevent, because I suspect from his posts that he doesnt really consider mechanics, or mechanical effectiveness especially relevent and that it should be all about your characters concept and personality.

And thats totally 100% fine and viable. But many many gamers dont feel that way, which is also totally fine. And, in the mechanics of the game, certain classes do have a greater need for more higher statistics than others. Its not a question, its a facet of the mechanics.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

snip ...

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.

Yes, but if you're expecting him to be just as effective as a fighter, I'd say you're missing the point. That's the fighter's schtick. Being a paladin is about being more than just a mere fighter, and trading some of that ability for the ability to do other things. The MAD argument would say that to be effective, the paladin and fighter should have the same fighting ability -- but then why even have fighters in the game? Every class has its way of contributing to the party. You only appear to be gimped by MAD if you're trying to do something another class is really designed to do better.

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.

That last line is the key. Mechanically the system appears that way -- and I personally feel it is an essential part of the design -- but the actual impact of it is what? That's dependent much more on style of play, and player/DM expectations.

 

[Merlion]

, but if you're expecting him to be just as effective as a fighter, I'd say you're missing the point. That's the fighter's schtick. Being a paladin is about being more than just a mere fighter, and trading some of that ability for the ability to do other things

Such as?

What ability do paladins have to do anything besides combat exactly?

Of course this also goes into the troubles with the fighter which is a whole other subject...


And if your going to say use his social skills....well anyone can do that. Balance really ceases to be an issue when your talking about non-combat, primarily non-mechanic stuff.


But yes, a Paladin should be able to particpate in combat well and effectively. They are a melee class. And they should be able to get benefit from the rest of their class abilities at the same time.

You only appear to be gimped by MAD if you're trying to do something another class is really designed to do better.

But the Paladin is designed to be a frontline fighter as well, and to use his various special abilities. Likewise, Monk is designed to be a physical combat class. But doing that involves the use of more ability scores than some other classes use. I dont see where there is any attempting to do anything another class was designed to do better involved.


Are you really saying a Paladin should only worry about his Charisma score and that its somehow unreasonble to want to have good Str and Con as a Paladin?

 

[Crothian]

I dont think the real issue here is wether MAD exists or not, because it does if you look at the mechanics. I think the issue is its relevence. Crothian doesnt consider it relevent, because I suspect from his posts that he doesnt really consider mechanics, or mechanical effectiveness especially relevent and that it should be all about your characters concept and personality.

And thats totally 100% fine and viable. But many many gamers dont feel that way, which is also totally fine. And, in the mechanics of the game, certain classes do have a greater need for more higher statistics than others. Its not a question, its a facet of the mechanics.

Mechancis are relevant, just not as relevant as people seem to think. But if the camapign is basically a war game where fighting happens all the time and little else is done; then the mechacnis will matter a lot more.

 

[Crothian]

Love the way the title of the thread changed but it looks like 60% of the people greatly disagree with you on that, but hey, what do they know?

the title of the thread never changed, what are ypu talking about???

 

[Merlion]

Mechancis are relevant, just not as relevant as people seem to think. But if the camapign is basically a war game where fighting happens all the time and little else is done; then the mechacnis will matter a lot more.

No...how much they matter isnt as much about the specifics of the campaign style, but in the preference of the group.


It is totally possible to have a group where mechanics matter very much and mechanical effectiveness is seen as very important, but where character concept and personality are just as important.

And that campaign may have multiple battles every single session, but have just as much time spent on character interaction and storyline.


And you may have a hack and slash game where nobody cares much about mechanical specifics and everyone just does whatever.


None of it is mutually exclusive, but you seem to feel that it is, and have a very narrow view of how these factors must interact.

 

[Crothian]

Very few things are ever mutually exclusively especially in a game as complex as role playing games can be. Campaign style is usually a reflection of the groups preferences so most of the time they mean the same thing. Few groups play a gaming style they do not perfer.

I just think that a character doesn't have to be have high ability scores to be useful and fun to play.

 

[Merlion]

I just think that a character doesn't have to be have high ability scores to be useful and fun to play.

But mechanically, they kind of do. Thats why I said what I said...if you ignore the mechanics and are only interested in the RP aspects, then yea it doesnt matter. But if you want a character to really get the good out of their mechanical class features, you are going to need at least medium or high scores in the abilities that affect those functions. And that includes combat itself.


And some classes have more needs in this area than others. A Paladin, to get anything resembling full use of his class abilities, is going to need at least a 14 in Str, Con, Wis and Cha. Yea you can cast spells with an 11 Wis, but not your good ones. And yea a 12 Cha will activate those abilities...but getting a +1 to hit once a day isnt really that much fun.