|
This one is still in the testing phase. But looking over the stats required from classes now, many classes require a number of good stat scores to be effective.
Many of Beta's fixes seem to make most classes reliant on more than one or two strong stats. However, the standard point buy is simply too low to balance this out.
Now I need to play a bit more with more classes to see if this is an issue only for classes like Bard (which, from what I can see, needs Dex, Int, Wis and Cha - with at LEAST Int and Cha to be nearly equal in level for an effective support Bard) or if it is more prevalent.
Considering the other changes, is it such a bad idea to introduce a +1 bonus to two ability scores every fourth level rather than just one. Given the high adventure focus of the Pathfinder setting and scenarios - I have found that the default system is just a tad underpowered compared to the goals and opposition presented.
Like I say, I need to play this out a little more to see - but it is feeling that even with lowering some stats to -8, the balance is still preventing characters from being properly effective in their class.
I'm not suggesting aiming to give a character 18 in two or more ability scores - rather, providing an incentive to be a bit more jack of all trades without needing to raise the level of point buy. (Which I feel is lacking more balance than providing +1 to two abilities every four levels.)
As it stands, a player will rarely place their +1 in anything other than their primary stat. With the number of abilities now used by each class, this is going to skew PC balance and effectiveness at higher levels - requiring more magic item buffs rather than developing the PC.
I genuinely think that this addition would go a long way towards helping balance out PCs while also providing characters that match up closer with the implied setting and tone of Pathfinder.
Conan
Now I need to play a bit more with more classes to see if this is an issue only for classes like Bard (which, from what I can see, needs Dex, Int, Wis and Cha - with at LEAST Int and Cha to be nearly equal in level for an effective support Bard) or if it is more prevalent.
Just curious -- why would a bard need a particularly high Int or Wis?
Maybe this will downplay the problems at high level. Just need to adjust the monsters to compensate.
|
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your criticism seems to be founded on a desire to build characters that are good at everything. Classes should be playtested using the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (which, incidentally, is the "standard fantasy" point buy for Pathfinder of 15 points).
For example, to make an "effective" bard, you can have Str 8, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 15. How is that "bad"? Not effective in melee, fine. Decent ranged ability and defense. 7 hit points at 1st level. Good skill points and a +1 on bardic knowledge. No special wisdom bonus, fine. Good ability to perform and cast spells. Room for improvement with level increases to scores.
Sorry, but it really grinds my gears when players complain if they don't have a +2 modifier in every stat.
EDIT: Standard point but in PRPG allows 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12. In other words, way above average ability for your race.
Here's a dangerous thought: How about a base number of points, place them as you want them? Floor of 3 and ceiling of 18, then adjust for race. Easy to run the math on. Everyone can play what they want. The "average schmo" theory gets to start with 60 points. Epic heroes start at 84 to 90, more than enough to play that tough bard someone mentioned. Maybe a talented level of 74 is more to your style. This way we can leave those special "character builder" dice gathering dust on the shelf, next to those special con dice and that huge novelty one you could not resist but the other players threatened to hit you with if you tried to use it during the game.
[decrepit man] Dice? Phooey. In my day we pulled chits from a cup and we liked it. You kids don't know how good you have it. Elf wassa class! There were traps everywhere. Every room had a monster with treasure and we did not care how it got there. We only had the really thin book. And we had to climb uphill in the pouring rain to game. Now all you kids get off my porch.[/decrepit man]
|
|
I'm not out to create a character that is good at everything - but with the current point buy system and the balance of abilities for each class - a character *seems* to be unlikely to be able to utilise all their special features.
Like I said, it's still too early for me to be certain, but I do think that if a company plans to have a point buy system - they need to make sure that it is feasible to build the character.
In the case of a bard - you need Cha for your abilities. Int for your Knowledges and Spellcraft (without a decent Int, you're wasting your bardic knowledge) You need Wis for skills like Sense Motive, Perception - which are useful bardic skills. You need Dex to ensure a reasonable AC and ability in the event of being caught in a fight and being pinned while the other PCs are trying to get to you.
Now these don't all have to be at the same level. As I see it - Cha and Int primary, Wis and Dex secondary. But to be able to get a reasonable bonus on your secondaries, the current system prevents a reasonable bonus on your primaries. There is just one ability too many.
Looking through I've also noted that the Monk seems to be in the same situation. Primary Dex and Wis, Secondary Str and Con.
Sure, you can roll dice - but my query is regarding the effect of point buy and how to improve characters via that system.
If you raise points, then you just get over all better characters. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing that you keep point buy so that you still get the same lower spread of scores - but as you level up, it balances out *on your two primary ablities.*
The original classes were more designed to have one primary and two secondary.
I also think that dismissing this altogether in favour of rolling dice is really missing the point of playtest discussions. I'm not saying it must be this way, I'm proposing the idea to see if it is feasible. And if people have noticed a similar trend or not.
Conan
|
|
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your criticism seems to be founded on a desire to build characters that are good at everything. Classes should be playtested using the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (which, incidentally, is the "standard fantasy" point buy for Pathfinder of 15 points).
For example, to make an "effective" bard, you can have Str 8, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 15. How is that "bad"? Not effective in melee, fine. Decent ranged ability and defense. 7 hit points at 1st level. Good skill points and a +1 on bardic knowledge. No special wisdom bonus, fine. Good ability to perform and cast spells. Room for improvement with level increases to scores.
Sorry, but it really grinds my gears when players complain if they don't have a +2 modifier in every stat.
EDIT: Standard point but in PRPG allows 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12. In other words, way above average ability for your race.
Those spreads sound reasonable. I will have to look into it.
As I said - I am basing this off our playtest experiences. We have made the change over to beta and it seems that our group of experienced 3.5 players are having an inordinate number of TPKs and near TPKs during Rise of the Runelords now.
At level 7, I would have expected more competence than we're seeing. But it could even out after more playtesting. Just stating an observation that it seems that as you level up, the ability boosts cause PCs to become unbalanced, and *less* effective overall.
At first level, there is no issue. At seventh level - it is beginning to look like not enough. I should note, I did find a similar issue with latter classes in 3.5.
Conan
I actually really like the +1 to two stats thing that Saga and 4.0 have instituted. It allows a character to bolster a, shall we say, less vital stat without feeling like he's costing himself in effectiveness. Like, let's say I have a fighter, and I'd like him to be a teensy bit more perceptive/social/intelligent, it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice my attack rolls or damage to get a little character development.
I know the numbers aren't the be all end all, but a little of the cross dabbling is handy and I actually plan to implement it in my games.
|
|
Okay, I see where you are coming from. You're getting extra feats now, and more ability scores at first level, and a bigger distribution of class skills. So the +1 ability score every 4 levels seems small. I don't agree, but I see your point now.
It isn't merely extra feats - special abilities in classes are much broader in the range of abilities they apply to - meaning that players are needing to spread their points out more than in traditional D&D.
Now this works okay early on, but as you level up, the points bonuses at every fourth level mean that not all your special abilities remain useful, and start to become less effective. I'm suspecting to the point of uselessness at higher levels.
This happens because a player will either have to spread their point bonuses out - which makes them useless benefits. Or they have to focus purely on one stat (which was kind of the expectation of 3.5) - which leads to the character losing overall effectiveness in favour of a single stat.
Given that most classes now have two primary stats and two secondary stats - it seems to me that rather than pumping more points into the first level, a more logical benefit is to have two +1s per fourth level. Because this allows the PC to still pump up one primary stat, while also being able to boost the second primary or one of their secondaries.
Doing it this way means you still can have your 8s and 9s, your secondaries are still lower and you get the benefit of your chosen Primary stat.
From the playtests I've seen, the old system was flawed the moment the other classes came out - Monks, Swashbucklers, Bards, Swordsages, Crusaders, Warblades... a lot of classes are weak choices because of it. It also punishes multiclassing as well.
Most other systems seem to have abandoned it in favour of more bonuses, and I think there is good reason for it.
Like I say- going +1 on two ability scores every four levels doesn't create the +2 in every ability score character. Boosting initial point buy does. Hence I propose this over raising standard point buy.
I'm interested in why you think having +1 in two ability scores every four levels isn't a good idea.
Conan
|
I am not at all fond of +1 every 4 levels, as it seems like an awful lot to me. Even for a Bard or Monk. Sure you get more feats and skills and whatever, but that is called resource management. There have always been cool feats and abilities that woul dbe awesome to have, but if I just didn't have the numbers for it I had to look elsewhere or sacrafice something to get the numbers.
At the most I can see
lvl 4 +1 to one ability
lvl 8 +1 to two abilities
lvl 12 +1 to one ability
lvl 16 +1 to two abilities
lvl 20 + 1 to one ability.
This would give you two extra increases.
Regardless I think this should be a House Rule issue, or at most an alternate rule to make it available to people who want it.
|
|
Like I say- going +1 on two ability scores every four levels doesn't create the +2 in every ability score character. Boosting initial point buy does. Hence I propose this over raising standard point buy.
I'm interested in why you think having +1 in two ability scores every four levels isn't a good idea.
The basic point-buy system assumes that odd numbers are less effective than even numbers, and thus cost less.
But knowing you have +1 to two stats coming means you can intentionally have a bunch of lower odd scores instead of a few higher even ones, and know that in 3 levels you can raise both and get a good power jump.
For example, let's assume a barbarian with 15 point buy, in order:
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
Currently, at 4th level a PC must choose between raising their Str or Con.
In the SAGA system, this choice is no longer necessary. That PC can get a 16 Str and 14 Con in one level.
That is a bit harsh to the player who spent the same points to get:
15, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 and now gets to raise their Str to 16.
Essentially, by waiting 3 levels, player 1 has gained an extra +2 to one ability score but otherwise has the same scores.
I'm not completely opposed to the +1/+1 system, but a better solution might be to just give a PC more points to buy their abilities, which they could spend how they please. Not sure how many though.
|
|
Honestly, yeah I would be too. Sort of a Unearthed Arcana blended in with options.
Let's face it, just on the boards we have come up with more rules otions than there are rules. So many of these are great ideas but probably should not be core rules. Options would be th ebest way to do so many of them.
I actually really like the +1 to two stats thing that Saga and 4.0 have instituted. It allows a character to bolster a, shall we say, less vital stat without feeling like he's costing himself in effectiveness. Like, let's say I have a fighter, and I'd like him to be a teensy bit more perceptive/social/intelligent, it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice my attack rolls or damage to get a little character development.
I know the numbers aren't the be all end all, but a little of the cross dabbling is handy and I actually plan to implement it in my games.
So do I. Please incorporate it in final release!
So do I. Please incorporate it in final release!I actually really like the +1 to two stats thing that Saga and 4.0 have instituted. It allows a character to bolster a, shall we say, less vital stat without feeling like he's costing himself in effectiveness. Like, let's say I have a fighter, and I'd like him to be a teensy bit more perceptive/social/intelligent, it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice my attack rolls or damage to get a little character development.
I know the numbers aren't the be all end all, but a little of the cross dabbling is handy and I actually plan to implement it in my games.
I agree with this as well. I would be more likely to play with lower scores at first level if I knew players would be getting an extra 6 points to their ability scores (Lvl 12) over the course of a campaign.
I find the 25 point buy to be quite reasonable. Good enough to give you a few good stats, some well-rounded stats, and some mediocre/not so great stats. In fact, I believe you can end up with a character with all 14s and one 10 with that level of point buy? That's not too shabby...
|
I actually really like the +1 to two stats thing that Saga and 4.0 have instituted. It allows a character to bolster a, shall we say, less vital stat without feeling like he's costing himself in effectiveness. Like, let's say I have a fighter, and I'd like him to be a teensy bit more perceptive/social/intelligent, it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice my attack rolls or damage to get a little character development.
I know the numbers aren't the be all end all, but a little of the cross dabbling is handy and I actually plan to implement it in my games.
I think it would encourage having "odd" stats with point-buy, if you get +1 to two stats every four levels, so I think it would be a good "tweak". Another possibility is that you still get +1 to one stat per four levels, *but* you get +1 to *all* stats at 8th and 16th level.
Thoughts?
We've just started playing the beta. At the character creation session, some players did not like how few points they got to make their characters. After a bit of discussion, we compromised on using the 25 point buy and eliminating the -2 penalty for demi-humans. To sort of balance this out for the humans and half-elves, they get a +2 and a +1 to place in whatever ability they want (but not both in the same ability).
Regards,
V
We've just started playing the beta. At the character creation session, some players did not like how few points they got to make their characters. After a bit of discussion, we compromised on using the 25 point buy and eliminating the -2 penalty for demi-humans. To sort of balance this out for the humans and half-elves, they get a +2 and a +1 to place in whatever ability they want (but not both in the same ability).
Regards,
V
Why use such an oddball solution instead of (say) using a bigger point buy? Not that there's anything wrong with oddball solutions.
Why use such an oddball solution instead of (say) using a bigger point buy? Not that there's anything wrong with oddball solutions.
Not my choice. I wanted to give them 30 points; a couple argued that was too much. Others were stroking out over the -2 penalty on demi-humans (which I don't care for, but it's not a deal breaker to me). After an hour of going over it, that's what the 4 players decided they wanted; lol.
Regards,
V
|
|
Why not just use what is in the book and playtest that?
If after you play several sessions the party thinks that the abilites were too low, then report it.
Because we have, and that is why I've brought up this issue. From our initial playtest experiences, it seems to me that this is a problem that will become more and more apparent as PCs level up.
As I stated, I think 15pts for a standard game is alright. I think the better solution is to provide +1 to two different ability scores every 4 levels - as per SAGA. This allows better balancing of classes and allows groups to still play with various levels of starting ability scores.
I feel that just giving more points at the beginning means that characters risk becoming too samey. It's not about getting lots of ability scores at high bonuses - but to get the necessary scores at reasonble levels without forcing a player to cut too low on their primary scores.
Conan
Regardless I think this should be a House Rule issue, or at most an alternate rule to make it available to people who want it.
Not to be rude, Krome, because I do appreciate many of your posts, but I am *really* getting tired of this "Let's just ignore the issue and placate people by making it a sidebar" crowd. We're in playtesting. If there's an idea out there that works better for the most people, rather than just relegating it to a sidebar, it needs to be considered as a primary rule. Not every new rule idea is going to make the cut, but constantly saying that a new idea should just be put to the side for some people who'll use a side bar or make a house rule is just missing the whole point, and it's not terribly conducive to actually generating new ideas.
That said, I also somewhat like the idea of a standard +1 to one stat, and then the occasional +1 to every stat. That's not a *bad* idea at all - even wizards are going to get stronger lugging their gear around all the time...
Because we have, and that is why I've brought up this issue. From our initial playtest experiences, it seems to me that this is a problem that will become more and more apparent as PCs level up.
This seems more like a much older issue than PRPG. Is there something about the Beta rules that makes you think makes this situation worse?
|
|
Regardless I think this should be a House Rule issue, or at most an alternate rule to make it available to people who want it.Not to be rude, Krome, because I do appreciate many of your posts, but I am *really* getting tired of this "Let's just ignore the issue and placate people by making it a sidebar" crowd. We're in playtesting. If there's an idea out there that works better for the most people, rather than just relegating it to a sidebar, it needs to be considered as a primary rule. Not every new rule idea is going to make the cut, but constantly saying that a new idea should just be put to the side for some people who'll use a side bar or make a house rule is just missing the whole point, and it's not terribly conducive to actually generating new ideas.
That said, I also somewhat like the idea of a standard +1 to one stat, and then the occasional +1 to every stat. That's not a *bad* idea at all - even wizards are going to get stronger lugging their gear around all the time...
*shrug* I just don't think every single incredibly minor "issue" needs to become a major core rule alteration. I didn't think you were rude at all, so please do not think I am trying to rude when I say this is really not an "issue" at all. It is not a rule that is broke, it is not a rule that is ambiguous. What it is, is a rule that some people ld like to see power punched up. It is perfectly playable and results in good quality characters that require some thought and resource management.
99% of the ideas on these forums are great ideas, but do not really warrant becoming core. Just like this one they warrant a place as an alternate rule.
Now, I did not in any way say the idea should not be explored and discussed. It should. In no way did I say let's ignore the issue. What I said is that this is a nice enough idea but does not warrant becoming de facto core but does warrant a place as an alternate rule. If I wanted the "issue" ignored I would have said this has no place in the book at all. I do believe it deserves a place in the book, but a place that DMs and players should feel free to adopt or not if the core rule does work for them.
In essence I do not believe in making a mountain out of a mole hill *shut up Dennis the Ogre, I am trying to relax and be less uptight about crap ok! :)* You can express your ideas and beliefs and I can express mine. In the end Jason and Company will decide what changes to make.
Until then feel free to persuade me this is a major issue that requires modification and forces all Pathfinder players the world over to use this system- and not just a power gaming issue.
|
|
I've been intrigued by this idea since seeing it in SW SAGA, as well, but not for the same reasons as the OP. I don't think it's necessary as a power-level thing, just interesting -- it makes sense that the party Wizard might build some muscles humping around that pack of goodies, and the Fighter might gain a point of Int after being repeatedly smacked in the head by baddies, or raise his Charisma after bedding dozens of barmaids.
But in play, simply allowing the players to choose where both bonuses go probably won't live up to that goal -- any player with a min-max bone in their body will simply add the second point into their second-most important stat, which gets boring fast. So I'm going to try it in my playtest campaign, but with a tweak — the players get to choose where their first bonus point goes at every fourth level, but they draw from the Harrow deck to determine where the second point goes.
So, the party wizard could get lucky and end up with two points added to Intelligence, but the random aspect means he can't just pump up his Con or Dex repeatedly (and the Fighter won't be pumping Str and Con, etc.).
|
|
even wizards are going to get stronger lugging their gear around all the time...
lol not my wizards I just use what was once known as Tensor's Floating Disk to carry everything... or use the braindead fighter :) (that was meant as humor everyone... not serious at all here--- LAUGH DAMNIT! or I'll get out what was once known as Tasha;s Hideous Laughter on ya!) :)
|
|
Let me post here why I don't think this is a major issue.
My dwarven fighter named Krome (mmm wonder where I got the name for my avatar here) was advancing along quite nicely. Now he multiclass a couple of times to Rogue and once to Ranger, not so much cause the FIghter class sucked anywhere, but because I wanted Evasion, and Tumble and Two-Weapon Fighting for the type of fighter I imagined. It was easier to multiclass for them than to work on the feats and actually fit in with what he wa doing at the time.
Now, that being said he had been leveling along and was looking at upper teen levels. All my ability score increases had been pumped into Strength. Then I came across two feats.
The Mountain Does Not Move from the Book of Ultimate Feats which allows me to "burn" a WIsdom point in order to make a Fort roll against the non magical damage I just took. If I succeed I do not suffer that damage. AWESOME! But now I need to work on some Wisdom cause I KNOW how often I will use that. So I sacrifice my Strength growth to work on Wisdom because that is a new focus for the character.
Then I read a feat from Complete Divine. I can't remember the exact name of it, but it lets me glow with a holy aura when I want. Not much else. No REAL game benefit at all. But I think this is so COOL, especially sine he is trying very hard to become a "paragon" of goodness. But I gotta have some Charisma. Crap my Charisma SUCKS! So, from then on until lvl 20 I worked on Charisma.
I sacrificed progress on Strength to work on something I found interesting and something I thought my character would focus on. It required Roleplaying. It sacrificed min.maxing. It made for a more interesting character, but one that was not fully focused as a fighter. But I guarantee you Krome did not suck as a fighter.
In essence I had t make some roleplaying decisions about my character. I had resources I had to manage. And I had to make decisions.
I think had I had more ability score points to add in I would have been more inclined to min/max and would have lost out on a LOT of roleplaying. And remember the hobby is called ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying.
Now ALL that said, I can see merit on including more ability score increases. I personally think an extra one every time is too many, but that is personal. No biggie. Because I can see it being useful and because I do not believe the current system is broken, I support the idea of making this an optional rule.
The criteria that I try to use for rule changes is... does the rule work in most circumstances but fail in some extremes or more important is the alternate idea just plain cool (like this one)- then it should be optional. If it fails every time then it needs to be rewritten or remade. I do not believe this one fails every time, but believe the idea of extra ability scores over time is cool. So I would say it should be an optional rule. I am willing to listen and be persuaded otherwise.
However, I do believe it warrants more discussion and disagreement and agreement. I do believe it is ok for me to not agree and ok for others to not agree with me.
*shut up laughing Dennis the Ogre* :)
|
|
I actually really like the +1 to two stats thing that Saga and 4.0 have instituted. It allows a character to bolster a, shall we say, less vital stat without feeling like he's costing himself in effectiveness. Like, let's say I have a fighter, and I'd like him to be a teensy bit more perceptive/social/intelligent, it'd be nice to not have to sacrifice my attack rolls or damage to get a little character development.
I know the numbers aren't the be all end all, but a little of the cross dabbling is handy and I actually plan to implement it in my games.
See that is cool and I like that... but I do not believe it is something that should be forced upon all players everywhere.
It is a good idea for fixing the problem you see- but it also creates a big problem in another area.
Not all PC's have MAD. Some have SAD. Single Attribute Dependency. To them, an extra 100% free +1 every 4 levels is just *awesome*.
Now forgive me please- I do not know Saga rules. Does it prevent you from putting both points into the same stat? (-tries to hide wizardy glee at +10 to int at 20th level-) I'm assuming it prevents it, but just figured I'd ask. Obviously if it doesn't- that is a problem. I don't think I need elaborate more on that.
But what would a lonely wizard do with another +1 every level? Anything he wanted. More hp? sure. Better dex? Sure. Right now, after character creation, the wizard has to make himself a pretty tough choice. Shore up problems, or become a better wizard. It's a classic trade off between offense and defense. Another ability score boost however goes a long way towards removing this problem. +2 every 4 levels means *every single* primary caster will have one of those in his primary stat. And another to shore up some weakness elsewhere in his "build". While personally this sounds lovely- it also sounds to be a great deal too much.
Not one to pick on primary casters too much, the fighter and the rogue also would benefit *greatly* under this system. They are both more or less primary stat figures. As is the Barbarian. All 3 usually super-boost one primary stat and shore up their second ability score as much as they can. Usually Str and Con, but also Dex and Con (for warrior and rogue respectively). With +2/4 levels they can do exactly that.
Now I'm not proposing that a wizard with +5 int is too powerful or that a rogue with +5 con is too powerful. It's the lack of trade offs that make it a problem.
+2/4 levels might make a monk or paladin playable in a low point buy system, but in the process it really just serves to strengthen some classes that don't really need the extra oomph to get the job done.
-S
A bunch of interesting stuff... then:
I had resources I had to manage. And I had to make decisions...
Ultimately here is the solution. Not every character is going to be good at everything that character does. A barbarian really NEEDs high STR (for Doing Damage), high CON (for Rage), and high DEX (for AC). If a barbarian wants to actually be able to spot things or survive in the wild he also should have some INT for skill points.
This is not a design problem, these are choices for the player to make. The OPs bard has similar choices.
And I don't always take the other side of the debate from you Krome :)
Not all PC's have MAD. Some have SAD. Single Attribute Dependency. To them, an extra 100% free +1 every 4 levels is just *awesome*.
This is a much bigger problem with the game system. Unfortunately, most people are not interested in the solution to the problem. The solution is simple and I saw it years ago proposed by someone called Otto the Bugbear. The solution is to make all primary casters multi attribute dependent. You can look at his solution here. Making casters MAD levels the playing field quite a bit. You mention fighters and rogues being SAD but really when you look at the classes they are MAD. Fighters really need CON and to a lesser extent DEX. Barbarians as well.
|
|
A bunch of interesting stuff... then:
I had resources I had to manage. And I had to make decisions...Ultimately here is the solution. Not every character is going to be good at everything that character does. A barbarian really NEEDs high STR (for Doing Damage), high CON (for Rage), and high DEX (for AC). If a barbarian wants to actually be able to spot things or survive in the wild he also should have some INT for skill points.
This is not a design problem, these are choices for the player to make. The OPs bard has similar choices.
And I don't always take the other side of the debate from you Krome :)
Actually most of the time you don't... most often we see pretty close I just thought you would find my lack of rant and rave to be amusing. :) I am trying to be more Zen... :)
Actually most of the time you don't... most often we see pretty close I just thought you would find my lack of rant and rave to be amusing. :) I am trying to be more Zen... :)
But the disagreements have been so much more memorable :)
I think perhaps my previous post (well 3 posts up anyhow) was a bit oblique.
The problem the OP speaks of is not an issue with ability scores, the real problem is with the classes themselves. Having some classes with Multiple Attribute Dependencies and others with only a single primary attribute is the real problem. This is something we should all raise a stink about when the discussion shifts to classes.
To make an effective XXXX you need (in order of value):
Bard: CHA, INT, DEX, STR
Paladin: STR, CHA, WIS, CON
Ranger: DEX, STR, WIS, CON
Wizard: INT... that's really IT
Cleric: WIS... again, nothing else
Druid: WIS... 'nuff said
Sorcerer: CHA..
Sure the cleric and druid are even more effective if they have some other stats to help them in combat but really they can get by with just WIS.
Oops... another long winded post. Sorry folks.
|
|
I think perhaps my previous post (well 3 posts up anyhow) was a bit oblique.
The problem the OP speaks of is not an issue with ability scores, the real problem is with the classes themselves. Having some classes with Multiple Attribute Dependencies and others with only a single primary attribute is the real problem. This is something we should all raise a stink about when the discussion shifts to classes.
To make an effective XXXX you need (in order of value):
Bard: CHA, INT, DEX, STR
Paladin: STR, CHA, WIS, CON
Ranger: DEX, STR, WIS, CON
Wizard: INT... that's really IT
Cleric: WIS... again, nothing else
Druid: WIS... 'nuff said
Sorcerer: CHA..Sure the cleric and druid are even more effective if they have some other stats to help them in combat but really they can get by with just WIS.
Oops... another long winded post. Sorry folks.
Prior to this I would never have considered MAD and SAD a real problem. But I can see how, for game mechanics balance this makes a lot of sense. They balanced out the races with +2/+2/-2. But the classes are rather inbalanced when it comes to ability dependence. So, th enext question becomes how to fix it? I read that article Dennis linked and it works well for making SAD into MAD. But what about the ones that really 3-4 ability scores? How to trim them down to just two?
Prior to this I would never have considered MAD and SAD a real problem. But I can see how, for game mechanics balance this makes a lot of sense. They balanced out the races with +2/+2/-2. But the classes are rather inbalanced when it comes to ability dependence. So, th enext question becomes how to fix it? I read that article Dennis linked and it works well for making SAD into MAD. But what about the ones that really 3-4 ability scores? How to trim them down to just two?
Well one thing I might suggest is looking at integrating requirements. For example, why not make the Paladin's spellcasting CHA based, that way all of his casting/ turning/ etc abilities are tied to CHA while all his physical combat/ etc abilities are tied to his physical abilities.
|
|
I think perhaps my previous post (well 3 posts up anyhow) was a bit oblique.
The problem the OP speaks of is not an issue with ability scores, the real problem is with the classes themselves. Having some classes with Multiple Attribute Dependencies and others with only a single primary attribute is the real problem. This is something we should all raise a stink about when the discussion shifts to classes.
To make an effective XXXX you need (in order of value):
Bard: CHA, INT, DEX, STR
Paladin: STR, CHA, WIS, CON
Ranger: DEX, STR, WIS, CON
Wizard: INT... that's really IT
Cleric: WIS... again, nothing else
Druid: WIS... 'nuff said
Sorcerer: CHA..Sure the cleric and druid are even more effective if they have some other stats to help them in combat but really they can get by with just WIS.
Oops... another long winded post. Sorry folks.
Thanks for that list. You overlooked the Monk - who is also a MAD class. *chuckle* I like that shortening.
While resource management is important, as a character shouldn't be good at *everything* there is also the trade off that they shouldn't be held back from being effective at what they want to be good at. As the list above shows, some classes don't require their stats as spread out as others - and that is a problem.
I do think that providing +1 to two abilities every four levels (and it has to be two different abilities) will benefit MAD classes while not hindering or giving the SAD classes any advantage. But it still wont help the initial build.
It is a real issue that has been around since 3rd ed was published and has never really been addressed.
Conan
I'm more in favor of trimming up the Mixed classes than I am screwing around with the SAD ones. I call them Mixed because usually, that is the problem. The classes do a mix of things- and that's what causes the issue. It isn't so much that the designers set out to screw some classes, as they never sought out to do 'em right to begin with.
TOO many things were brought over from AD&D with nary a thought. Paladin, Bard, Ranger, primarily are the culprits.
in AD&D the Paladin in particular had some stringent entry requirements. Not surprisingly- they had to have stats that made them decent in the things that they do. In 3.0 they did away with the requirements- but kept the class heavily dependant on those stats they used to "require". In effect- they kept the requirement while making it look like it went away.
The rogue, the fighter, the barbarian, the wizard, the cleric, the druid- these all really just have one stat. Yes- the fighter and barbarian have two but JUST two. They can each have 4 dumpstats if they want from a pure mechanical standpoint and will do just fine in the party. The wizard and rogue are in the same boat. High primary, High secondary, screw the rest. (the rogue is slightly out in this, sa he actually needs at least a 0 modifier in most attributes if he doesn't want some negative skills but he can avoid those skills if he wants to just do the trap thing).
The solution as you have stated, I simply LOVE. Lets do some attribute combining among the classes. Either make Divine Grace and LOH work off wisdom, or make their spells work on Charisma. (both work thematically, imo).
Lets let Monks get Wisdom to damage instead of Strength. (dex is already heavy enough).
Let Rangers get Wisdom to empathy instead of Charisma. (or cha for spells instead of wisdom).
And so on.
Nice idea :)
-S
|
Well one thing I might suggest is looking at integrating requirements. For example, why not make the Paladin's spellcasting CHA based, that way all of his casting/ turning/ etc abilities are tied to CHA while all his physical combat/ etc abilities are tied to his physical abilities.
Your idea of having the Paladin's spellcasting be purely Charisma based is so good that it's already been adopted! :)
I felt that change was a step in the right direction for reducing MAD. Monks still suffer from it, but at least Paladins are suffering less.
Your idea of having the Paladin's spellcasting be purely Charisma based is so good that it's already been adopted! :)
I felt that change was a step in the right direction for reducing MAD. Monks still suffer from it, but at least Paladins are suffering less.
I'm glad I thought of it today so Jason could have it ready in time for the Beta then. Usually I'm a step behind the smart people.
's what I get for commenting on classes I don't really pay mush attention to.
|
|
As I said - I am basing this off our playtest experiences. We have made the change over to beta and it seems that our group of experienced 3.5 players are having an inordinate number of TPKs and near TPKs during Rise of the Runelords now.
Conan
Um dude that's not your characters or your players. That's the AP in action. Rise was crazy hard, especially at the end.
Thanks for that list. You overlooked the Monk - who is also a MAD class. *chuckle* I like that shortening.
The monk is among the worst of them... I just don't really play monks enough to recall what the dependencies are. WIS, DEX, STR, CON?
While resource management is important, as a character shouldn't be good at *everything* there is also the trade off that they shouldn't be held back from being effective at what they want to be good at. As the list above shows, some classes don't require their stats as spread out as others - and that is a problem.
Well again, this is an issue with the classes, not the abilities. If you wanted to character to be good at everything they "want to be good at" then simply give them 18s across the board and let them work up from there. The point is that maybe some bards should be knowledge experts and some should be diplomats and spellcasters... but maybe not all of them are good at both. Just because a class is capable of doing lots of things doesn't mean every member of that class should be all stars at it. A good example is ranger spell casting, to be really good as a caster you need an 18 wisdom but unless your player focuses on that he's never going to be a great caster.
I do think that providing +1 to two abilities every four levels (and it has to be two different abilities) will benefit MAD classes while not hindering or giving the SAD classes any advantage. But it still wont help the initial build.
Sure, but you could make the same statement about providing +1 to three abilities, or four abilities... this is the problem I see in a lot of places on this board "This change is tiny and doesn't really increase the power level that much"... but all of the changes rolled together do have a huge impact. The races already start out with one ability score 2 higher than in 3.5 core. How many little changes does it take to make a big one?
I'm going to cut and paste this into about 3 other threads where people want similar 'tiny' increases in power.