Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[Merlion]

No-one can dispute that some classes require high ability scores in more than one ability score to access all their class abilities. The real point is that in a 25-point game (or a random character generation method that approximates that), almost all characters will have enough bonuses in enough ability scores that any character class becomes viable.

Well, from the title of the thread, it looked as though the point was that Crothian felt/feels that MAD is a "myth". That is, that no class is any more in need of more higher ability scores than others.

Which is not really true.

And yes, in most character generation methods, all classes will be viable. However, in some methods, some classes will compare more favorable to other classes than in other methods. A Paladin will get more good out of a 32 point buy, overall, than a Fighter will.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, some classes can take advantage of higher ability scores then other classes. But they don't need to have high ability scores.

 

[Merlion]

Yes, some classes can take advantage of higher ability scores then other classes. But they don't need to have high ability scores.

They need to have more, higher ability scores than other classes though. It depends on what you mean by "high".

If by "high" you mean 14-15 , yea they need several high abilities scores.


If by high you mean 16 or 18, no they dont need multiple 16s or 18s...although a 16 and several 14s would be nice. Although unlikely. In, say, a 25 point buy the Pally or Monk is going to be lucky to ge the 3 or so 14s they need, and certainly wont be able to get a 16 and a couple 14s. But the Fighter could probably get a 16 Str and a 14 Con (or vice versa).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I disagree with your analysis of the 10/10/10/10/10/14 paladin vs the fighter. (Though you're right to point out that the fighter will have trouble getting good use out of all his feats--Barbarian would have been a better example). The basic problem that the paladin faces vis a vis the fighter is that he will do far less damage than the fighter less often. Against a 1st level orc warrior in studded leather, the 1st level fighter will hit 55% of the time for 6.5 points of damage per hit. That's an average damage/round of 3.575 excluding crits. The paladin will hit 45% of the time for 4.5 points of damage. That's 2.025 average damage per round. By sixth level--the point where you think the paladin will be improving vis a vis the fighter, assuming he picks up a +1 longsword and Weapon Focus, he'll be attacking at +8/+3 for 5.5 points of damage per hit. 7.45 average damage per full attack. The fighter, OTOH, will be attacking at +10/+5 for an average of 9.5 damage per hit. 14.75 points of damage per full attack. The paladin is so far behind the fighter in terms of damage dealing that he's hardly even playing in the same game.

Now, in this case, the problem isn't nearly as much the 16 point buy as it is the way those 16 points are distributed. Let's imagine for a moment that the paladin takes a 12 strength and a 12 charisma. Now, he's attacking at +2 for 5.5 points at first level 2.75 points of damage per round. At 6th level, he's got +9/+4 for 6.5 points of damage. 9.45 points of damage per full attack. In both cases, the paladin has closed the offensive gap between him and the fighter considerably--enough that his defensive and healing abilities might be more relevant.

This analysis plays into the example you propose with the 25 point paladin. I notice that you spread out your ability scores into what looks like a pretty reasonable spread for a paladin. A fighter, on the other hand, is not going to be well served by the 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10 spread you propose for the paladin. The fighter is probably better off just going Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8. If we want to avoid dump-statting in both examples (though part of the principle of MAD is that characters who suffer from it have fewer dump stats), we could make that 16, 10, 14, 13, 10, 10. Either way, the point is that the effective ability spread for the MAD character is more spread out than the effective ability spread for a non-MAD character.

So, even in a 16-point game, all we can conclude is that the fighter will fight better than the paladin. However, the paladin still gets some defensive and healing advantages against the fighter, so he isn't at a clear-cut disadvantage. If you like, we can run this exercise in a 25-point game, with ability scores of Str 14, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 14 for the paladin.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's the original thesis, by the way. No-one can dispute that some classes require high ability scores in more than one ability score to access all their class abilities. The real point is that in a 25-point game (or a random character generation method that approximates that), almost all characters will have enough bonuses in enough ability scores that any character class becomes viable.

That's not what I read from the original thesis.

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.

While I would agree that you don't need to have especially high stats overall to play an effective monk or paladin, I depart from the original thesis in several areas:

1. While you don't need especially high stats overall to make an effective MAD character, you do need more stats above 10 than you do in order to make an effective non-MAD character.

2. While I think you can make any of the 11 core classes viable on 25 point buy, I don't think that scales down much further. If I'm given 20 or 22 points to build a character (as I would be if I played a bloodrank 3 val character in Living Arcanis or a cohort in Living Greyhawk), I'm not going to go for either a monk or a paladin. When you drop below the 25 point floor, you start having to make too many sacrifices for monks or paladins to get proper use out of their abilities.

3. While the standard array is nifty, I don't think it works equally well for all characters. It works much better for non-MAD characters like the cleric or wizard than it does for monks or paladins. Your 25 point paladin looked like a pretty good build to me, but I notice he was more spread out than the standard array.

4. Equally important is the fact that min-maxing would probably lead MAD characters in opposite directions from non-MAD characters when departing from the one-size fits all solution of the standard array. Your example paladin, for instance, is probably an improvement on a standard array paladin. Improving a barbarian from the standard array, OTOH, would mean concentrating the stats more (possibly eliminating the 12 in favor of a 16) rather than less.