Removing MAD

[Sadrik]

The idea below is to remove either a secondary stat or a primary stat for those that have two. This is not to completely remove MAD (Multiple Ability Dependence) but to remove forced stat placement and make classes a little more open to having different stats lines. A house rule like this would instantly improve the four "1/2 classes" (Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock). The Paladin can grab their 18 or 20 in CHA and pick up their secondary stat WIS with a 14 or 16 and be pretty competent. The Paladin could pick all of their possible powers instead of 1/2 of their powers as now. Follow this reasoning all the way through with the other three "1/2 classes" and this will improve all of them as well.

Cleric
All powers are based off of WIS.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on CHA.
Paladin
All powers are based off of CHA.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on STR.
Ranger
All powers are based off of DEX.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on WIS.
Rogue
All powers are based off of DEX.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on CHA.
Warlock
All powers are based off of CHA.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on CON.
Warlord
All powers are based off of STR.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on INT.
Wizard
All powers are based off of INT.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on WIS.

 

[Sadrik]

The former primary and secondary stat placements follows the PHB pretty closely. The following steps away from the PHB pretty heavily:
Cleric
All powers are based off of CHA.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on WIS.
Warlock
All powers are based off of WIS.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on CON.

 

[Garthanos]

I like your second set with greater divergence better for some reason...

 

[Sadrik]

I like your second set with greater divergence better for some reason...

Yeah me too. If I institute this rule, in a new campaign I'll attempt it with those stats instead. If I apply this to the current one I would use the first set.

How do you feel about the overall concept though? Does it remove MAD, does it allow players to more freely place their stats around without losing out on being competent in their class? Does it make the "1/2 classes" more playable?

 

[Nymrohd]

The thing is, the 1/2 classes don't all have that problem. Warlocks and rangers hardly have any problem with MAD at all (except Con starlocks). Neither do devoted clerics for that matter. MAD is only a problem for: Battle Clerics who want need some Cha (though they can build their characters without Cha-using powers easily), and paladins. Charisma based paladins only have an issue because of feat prerequisites they may want to meet. Strength paladins arguably do have a MAD issue (and again feat prerequisites are a big part of it).

 

[Sadrik]

The thing is, the 1/2 classes don't all have that problem.

Except you go on to say the Warlock does the Cleric does and the Paladin does. So which is it? They do have a problem or they don't?

The only one you missed was the Ranger and only because it is arguably the most powerful class.

So why would you want to give these more option? Options make designing a character not a cookie cutter experience. Right now you have multiple stats that you rely on, one of which is integral to your enjoyment of the class. Lets face it if you have a 14 in your primary stat it will not be as much fun as a 20. So limiting the powers to 2 predictable stats gives you the ability to customize your character the way you want and not be limited in options.

Charisma based paladins only have an issue because of feat prerequisites they may want to meet. Strength paladins arguably do have a MAD issue (and again feat prerequisites are a big part of it).

So what are you saying?
The Paladins only problem is feat requirements?

What about the 1/2 classes, reliance on only 1/2 of their powers? I think that is a problem in and of it self! Meaning you have two builds for each class and only two builds (or in the case of the Starlock a third sub-par build).

 

[keterys]

Well, I'll say that warlocks kinda do... it's a little sad to look at each new level with my infernal warlock and go 'Hey, 7 choices... 2 based on Con, 5 based on Charisma'

Ranger
All powers are based off of DEX.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on STR.

DEX + WIS - dex for melee works fine.

Rogue
All powers are based off of DEX.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on STR.

Secondary should be Charisma.

Warlock
All powers are based off of CHA.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on CON.

I actually like the reverse better, but eh.

Warlord
All powers are based off of STR.
All powers secondary stat bonuses are based on INT.

I'm not that happy with this - Charisma is pretty important for warlords too. I'm not sure of a good solution off the top of my head - I will say that Str primary and Int/Cha as it is now isn't actually all that bad.

 

[Garthanos]

I almost want to call my problem SAD, specific ability dependence... ie if you could create a more effective smart fighter for instance in other words finding reasons to make other attributes useful or efficient within various classes this is sort of the other end is it a different fix/problem?.... I see making two attributes the only ones you need for class efficiency possibly having the other impact... Ie everybody pumps.. them and they are known to be the only things you need for the class...

how about removing the hierarchy a little...all Powers have multiple attributes - one for reliability and one for potency and possibly a third for area of Narrowing what it takes to make a class work seem to mean we will get more look a likes in the classes not less.effect or a fourth for range or duration. Obviously there is a horror story of complexity building up in there.

We could do something like how the trinity of Defensive Pairings goes
Reflex / Will / Fortitude.

In other words most of the time your attack with this power is based on the higher of the two, but when you are forced out of your comfort zone... you use the lesser of the two attributes.

A character who is designed adaptively will be far less burdened by combat advantage or some other condition which inhibits the ability she normally uses for this attack or defense.

 

[Garthanos]

Ummm duplicate post

 

[keterys]

Actually... that's probably not a bad idea to just declare potential stats. So then you can have a paladin who uses either Str or Cha to attack, whichever they prefer. Or a warlock with Con or Cha.

Hmm, some issues with that, too.

Aside: Sadrik, you've been throwing up a lot of potential ability score ideas, but I think it's pretty unclear what you're actually trying to achieve overall. It might be a good idea to explicitly list _just_ the things that bother you in a post (ex: people ignore one of the two stats in a pair, there are no smart rogues, dextrous wizards, etc), without actually posting any suggested fixes at all as part of that. Get a lot more open brainstorming on the problem.