Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[Crothian]

I've got news for you...all the core classes are not balanced right either.

They are pretty balanced. Now, some of the classes are easier to abuse then others, but that's a different story.

 

[Crothian]

So I take a feat and lose +10 movement and I get a grand killing machine. A lot of people would take that trade

A lot of people would spend a feat that barbarians get few of to get armor that limits them more? In five years of gaming and reading thousands of characters of EN World and Wizards boards I can't say I've ever seen this.

Hope I can get around the meat shield of fighters, barbarians, rangers and such, and still be in time to help my party.

With a monks speed and tumble they can do this. Monks can fight, but they can also move around help with flanks, use the terrain, hit and run, do some sneaking.....

 

[FireLance]

I'm not entirely sure what the point or context of the question is. But some classes do need mid or high scores in more abilities than others. In a stat-restrictive campaign, like a low-point point buy or one where ability increasing items are rare, paladins, bards, rangers, monks would certainlly be penalized/effected by it more so than other classes. At the other end, the prime casters would be least effected.

I think the proposition is as follows: MAD is a fallacy because in a typical 25 point buy campaign (or a dice rolling method that generates equivalent ability scores), the characters will have sufficiently high scores to make a character of any class viable.

So, we're not talking about characters with one 16 and 10's and 8's everywhere else. We're talking about characters with ability scores like 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10.

 

[Merlion]

They are pretty balanced. Now, some of the classes are easier to abuse then others, but that's a different story.

The Cleric is not balanced. Nor is the Sorcerer. The Fighter may well not be either. I dont want to derail the thread, but your statement caught me. You seem to feel that core classes are fine, but the non core base classes are mainly overpowered.

I know for a fact that, as I said, the core classes are far from perfectly balanced.

Now I admit I havent payed huge attention to most of the non core base classes, because most of them I find thematically uninteresting. However, I have taken a pretty good look at a few. The Warlock seems underpowered. The Swashbuckler seems fine. The only one I've seen the rivals the Clerics absurd power level is the Favored Soul, which is basically just a variation on the Cleric..

With a monks speed and tumble they can do this. Monks can fight, but they can also move around help with flanks, use the terrain, hit and run, do some sneaking.....

Not without good Wis and Dex scores and/or a lot of magic items. A Monk's only source of AC is either Dex, Wis, or AC enhancing items. And without AC, their going to get trounced by full-blown warriors. Especially since they also have mediocre HP for a militant class. Although this can of course be mitigated...by having a med or high Con score.

I think what the people who say that Paladins or Monks have MAD are saying in this threadis not that they need tons of high stats to pull off those classes but rather that a 32 PB Paladin will compare more favourably to a 32 PB Barbarian than a 25 PB Paladin does to a 25 PB Barbarian.

This is pretty much the crux of it. Some classes do need more higher scores to be *effective* than others. Because their abilities depend on more things, quite simply. This is especially true of the warrior types who also have other abilities. They are going to need at least 2 out of the three physical stats to be good, and then a good score in whatever ability runs their special powers. For the Paladin for instance, its Str, Con and Cha. a Paladin with, say a 12 in any of these is going to have issues. And then they really need some Wis too.

 

[Crothian]

The Cleric is not balanced. Nor is the Sorcerer. The Fighter may well not be either. I dont want to derail the thread, but your statement caught me. You seem to feel that core classes are fine, but the non core base classes are mainly overpowered. I know for a fact that, as I said, the core classes are far from perfectly balanced.

Not saying perfectly blaanced, just saying they seem to all be within what I feel are acceptible guidelines.

And I never said the non core classes were overpowered, just not as well balanced. I think some of them are actually weak.

Not without good Wis and Dex scores and/or a lot of magic items. A Monk's only source of AC is either Dex, Wis, or AC enhancing items. And without AC, their going to get trounced by full-blown warriors. Especially since they also have mediocre HP for a militant class. Although this can of course be mitigated...by having a med or high Con score.

Monks don't get armor, but they do get a wisdonm score to AC. Not a perfect trade off but that's what it is. And one less hit point per level on average is not mediocre.

 

[Merlion]

I think the proposition is as follows: MAD is a fallacy because in a typical 25 point buy campaign (or a dice rolling method that generates equivalent ability scores), the characters will have sufficiently high scores to make a character of any class viable.
.

Thats probably more or less true. However some discrepancy might come up later as well. For instance, a Wizard really just needs to boost his Int. So, he just needs to get, and regularly upgrade a Headband of Intellect. So the rest of his monetary resources/treasure whatever can go elsewhere.


A Paladin, for example, needs weapons and armor...and a Cloak of Charisma, and probably either a Str or Con item or possibly both.

So, we're not talking about characters with one 16 and 10's and 8's everywhere else. We're talking about characters with ability scores like 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10.

Well I admit that I tend to be, and have played under other DMs who also tend to be pretty generous when it comes to ability scores. I really think a PC should generally have like one 16 starting out. But that aside, your right those scores could make a perfectly viable character of any class.

However as mentioned above in something controlled like a point buy...certain classes are still going to be a bit better off than others. One can easily give a wizard a 16 or even an 18, in Int by sacrificing other stats and do perfectly well...and be a better wizard for it.

But a Paladin or a Ranger is pretty much going to have to stick to at best 14s in his important stats, simply because their are more of them.

Of course we also havent even gotten into having stats for less mechanical reasons like wanting a decent Int for most characters for skill points...or for purely RP reasons..

 

[Crothian]

Of course we also havent even gotten into having stats for less mechanical reasons like wanting a decent Int for most characters for skill points...or for purely RP reasons..

THen if a player wants to do either of those he just might have to sacrifce something else. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Merlion]

Not saying perfectly blaanced, just saying they seem to all be within what I feel are acceptible guidelines

We have different feelings then. The Cleric is drastically too strong, and the Sorcerer(Compared to other casters) is exceedingly underpowered.

And I never said the non core classes were overpowered, just not as well balanced. I think some of them are actually weak.

Well like I said I find most of them to be rather stupid so I dont pay much attention, but from what I know of them I'd say they are much like the core classes. Mostly balanced, with one or two severely overpowered, and one or two underpowered.

Monks don't get armor

I know. That was basically my point.

they do get a wisdonm score to AC. Not a perfect trade off but that's what it is

yes. Which means to have a good AC, and avoid attacks, they need a good Wis (and/or Dex). And, it will need to increase as they go up in level and their enemies attack bonuses get higher.

And one less hit point per level on average is not mediocre

Yes it is. Of the classes that are primarily focused on combat-Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Monk, Fighter and Paladin have a d10, Barbs have d12, and Monk and Ranger have d8. Therefore, for a melee type, especially one with few other abilities useful in general combat, Monk's hit points are mediocre. The same as the Cleric and Druid who are supposed to have little melee ability, and who do have major spellpower.


My big point tho was the way to get around that is, a high Con score.


Monks are more ability dependant than, say a Fighter. They have the same ability needs as any Fighter (Str, Con), plus at least Wis, and really Dex.

 

[Merlion]

THen if a player wants to do either of those he just might have to sacrifce something else. Nothing wrong with that.

There is if it means sacrificing having a character who is mechanically effective. In my opinion. I dont feel mechanical effectiveness and roleplaying concept need to be mutual exclusive. But I digress..

 

[MacMathan]

I do think that some classes are more playable with lower stats then others.

As far as the monk goes, my own solution has been to up the rate of AC gain.

A monk with a 14 dex and 14 wis is still 2 points of ac behind the guy with a 14 dex and a chain shirt. In fact Dexs being equal the monk needs an 18 wis to be at even AC at low levels.

I find giving them +1 to AC at 1st level and every 3 after helps keep them viable AC-wise with other "light" AC melee types such as ranger, barbarian and rogue.

I think a contrast of MAD/not MAD can be seen is a basic Fighter needs Str and Con to do their job well(Yes I know that is MAD too but go with it.) Anything beyond that required for stats makes it more challenging for the other classes such as Paladin who also wants a decent Cha and Wis.

For Casters look to the Wizard who just needs a Int at the most basic level. The Cleric can also get away with a decent Wis only, although since they tend to melee a little bit and turn undead it is more arguable. Similar for Rogues. All of the other classes beyond the basic four have the same or greater requirements for stats to function well.

Yes, "well" is a relative term and any PC played by an experienced player with imagination can do well regardless of stats but given same player abilities and same stats some classes have an easier time of being effective than others.

Just my 2 cuprum.