One of the main problems with 5e, IMO, stems from its fundamental design philosophy: bounded accuracy. At first, 10 years ago, I thought it was a good idea since it greatly simplified the mathematics of the game. But over the years it has been seen that this simplification in mathematics entails many problems. The most serious of them, IMO, is that it forces the player to minmaxing in order to be good at what they are supposed to be good at; leaving very little room for other things. This greatly limits the customization capacity and the variability of characters. Linked to the above, the problem discussed in this thread is derived, which is the existence of MAD classes and subclasses. That wouldn't be a problem if attributes didn't have so much weight in the final bonus added to the die result. But because of the bounded accuracy it is terrible.
Then converting all classes and subclasses to SAD is taking from one mouth to feed another. That is, you end the problem of being MAD, but you deepen the problem of minmaxing. Therefore, in my opinion, the best solution would be to decouple the game from the bounded accuracy philosophy. But that is currently impossible, since it would basically be designing a new edition.
And as a side note, notice that the world has changed a lot in 10 years. Nowadays, with so many tools to automate die trows, it is becoming less and less problematic add big bonuses. This means that what bounded accuracy seeks, which is to make the game less number cruncher, has less and less real impact.
The main benefit of bounded accuracy is encounter diversity, when bonuses scale really fast (like in pathfinder) there is a very narrow set of monsters that are an appropriate challenge for a party at any give level. Putting a CR 2 monster up against a level 2 party is a TPK situation, whereas putting even 10 CR 1/2s up against them is barely a challenge.
It's funny how points of view are, since that seems like a disadvantage to me. It makes combat much more difficult to balance, and is one of the reasons why CR in 5e doesn't work (nor will it work in 5e Revised, you'll see).
In any case, I am not asking that they remove the bounded accuracy, let me be clear. Among other things because that is a Santa Claus letter. WoTC is not going to make such a radical change even if they are threatened with a gun. Besides, that would bring them too close to PF2, and it's okay that there are different game systems for different people (or different times). What I am saying is that the fact that MAD classes and subclasses are a problem is the fault of bounded accuracy. If not, you could play much better around that. And the lack of customization, or the almost obligation to minmax, also comes from there.
Sorry, not got PC access at moment, so hard to edit. My points are more fundamental to how the system is designed, as you can see from Ain_undos's posts, for MAD too truly work, you have to redefine the ways ability modifiers work but this conflicts with a basic design point, which is that one d&d is too be backwards compatible, you would have to go back and alter multiple subclasses, if not more.
One would not have to do anything like what they advocate in order to make the classes MAD.
It's not that I am against your ideas in principle, it is that I do not think them compatible with what one d&d is trying to achieve, which I would say is to be a 5.5e.
Fundamentally the ability scores & modifiers were designed for a more simplistic approach. So instead of trying to do something more becoming of an entire new edition of D&D it is better to focus on less things and do them well then a lot if things and do them poorly. In the current design it would not take much work to make MAD classes SAD, it already happened for pact of the blade warlock but too make all classes MAD takes significantly more work outside of subclasses.
Reworking the classes in either direction is too large a change for back-compatibility at the subclass level. Paladin, in particular, would need a serious rework if you wanted to remove either Str or Cha. Ranger (and also Paladin) would become very conceptually weird if you put either combat on a mental stat or spellcasting on a physical stat. (The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that letting warlocks do it is a design mistake.) Monk subclasses would probably all need a rework.
But it could've been done, with a slightly different level of compatibility. (Disallow mixing of old/new classes with new/old subclasses, which was probably a good idea, anyway.)
I say it could've been done, because I can look at the classes and see how I'd do it, and I'm not some super-genius game designer. (I'm also aware it'd be more complicated than it looks at first glance, because it'd not be my first rodeo.) Now, I'm not going to, because if I wanted to rebuild all the classes, I'd be being somewhat more radical.
Honestly, MAD is a somewhat misleading description, imo. Rangers and Monks are both primarily weapon attack focused classes, and neither strongly emphasizes the use of their WIS DC for major class features in the same way a dedicated caster does.
For Monks very few subclasses use the Ki save, and mostly for supplemental effects on top of attacks. Sun Soul uses it for casting Burning Hands- a half on save spell- after already taking the attack action or for their infinitely spammable mini fireball; Dragon uses it for the half on save AoE attack that replaces a single attack roll, their bonus action for the duration aura, and as a save or suck bonus damage when they activate said aura; Open Hand uses it for the free rider options to FoB. About the only one besides Astral Soul that makes heavy use of it is Elements, which admittedly is not a great subclass, but that’s one subclass falling through, not an overall design failure. For the class itself, only Stunning Strike- a rider option on all melee attacks- uses it, and considering how potent the effect is and that it uses 0 additional action economy, it’s honestly a fair trade to make it marginally less likely to succeed than something like Hold Person.
For Rangers, Drakewarden has a large AoE, high damage half on save breath attack; Fey Wanderer has a reaction to attempt to reflect a charm or frighten condition; Monster Slayer has a once per rest pseudo Counterspell; Swarmkeeper has an option to attempt a shove when an attack hits. None of these are cornerstone features to a build. Does pinch on spellcasting, but there’s a good number of options that don’t rely on DC; Lightning Arrow, for example, is still functionally doing 4d8 extra damage to the main target even if the weapon attack misses and the target makes the save. No, you’re not blasting the same way a Wizard would, but presumably if you wanted to do that you’d play a Wizard.
And using point-buy and the Tasha’s rule for racial ASI any character can have two 16’s and a 12 out of the gate without dumping another stat below 10. The distribution is not particularly flexible, but it still covers a good suite of skills and Rangers as of Tasha’s and 1D&D have some expertise to round that out, while Monks just aren’t a skill-oriented class. All in all, the classes aren’t going to massively suffer because they can’t max WIS alongside DEX.
Make all the classes more or less independent of ability scores (NAD) and the game gets better. Suddenly it isn't a simple math optimization of "big numbers go brrrr" and the imagination can shine thru.
At that point you're just talking an entirely different system, you might as well get rid of dice and just have formless improv RP, there is nothing wrong with that but it isn't D&D, it is something different. The structure of the game, characters and mechanics add a lot to what the D&D experience is, without those it is a different experience.
That's incorrect.
Ability score requirements are not critical to the system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Make all the classes more or less independent of ability scores (NAD) and the game gets better. Suddenly it isn't a simple math optimization of "big numbers go brrrr" and the imagination can shine thru.
At that point you're just talking an entirely different system, you might as well get rid of dice and just have formless improv RP, there is nothing wrong with that but it isn't D&D, it is something different. The structure of the game, characters and mechanics add a lot to what the D&D experience is, without those it is a different experience.
That's incorrect.
Ability score requirements are not critical to the system.
They’re a part of what makes the system recognizable as D&D. As has been said, if you’re overhauling the system that fundamentally, you’re essentially creating a new system. And if you want to do that, more power to you, but the SDCoIWCh stat array and the general distribution of what class prioritizes what stat is way too much of a pillar to what people recognize as D&D to pull.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Make all the classes more or less independent of ability scores (NAD) and the game gets better. Suddenly it isn't a simple math optimization of "big numbers go brrrr" and the imagination can shine thru.
At that point you're just talking an entirely different system, you might as well get rid of dice and just have formless improv RP, there is nothing wrong with that but it isn't D&D, it is something different. The structure of the game, characters and mechanics add a lot to what the D&D experience is, without those it is a different experience.
That's incorrect.
Ability score requirements are not critical to the system.
They’re a part of what makes the system recognizable as D&D. As has been said, if you’re overhauling the system that fundamentally, you’re essentially creating a new system. And if you want to do that, more power to you, but the SDCoIWCh stat array and the general distribution of what class prioritizes what stat is way too much of a pillar to what people recognize as D&D to pull.
I didn't mention the stat array or ability score prioritization, I said ability score requirements.
making them independent of requirements is a part of the initial comment to make the classes independent of ability scores (and is easiest to achieve that way). It, also, did not mention prioritization or stat arrays.
I don't disagree that the standard six score array (which, technically, is a variable of 6 to 10, historically, and can be as much as 8 right now) is a key aspect of the game -- but you can rename them and it would still be d&d (a ship of theseus argument doesn't work for D&D) -- the key is that they exist and operate within a core 3d6 paradigm, mechanically.
And I do think that prioritization is an important part of classes mechanically -- it is part of what serves to guide creation and helps to define the class archetype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
Setting aside the tacit implication that D&D players are primarily power gamers who are only interested in seeing big numbers, which is kinda rude and condescending, the game currently doesn’t actually require any minimum numbers to play one class. The hard stat requirements are for multi-classing and some heavy armor. There’s no rule against dumping your class’ primary stat big you want to try a quirk roleplay and/or build. Now, not every group will appreciate or be open to that, but that’s just a matter of sorting out group campaign goals as players should do before any campaign.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
Setting aside the tacit implication that D&D players are primarily power gamers who are only interested in seeing big numbers, which is kinda rude and condescending, the game currently doesn’t actually require any minimum numbers to play one class. The hard stat requirements are for multi-classing and some heavy armor. There’s no rule against dumping your class’ primary stat big you want to try a quirk roleplay and/or build. Now, not every group will appreciate or be open to that, but that’s just a matter of sorting out group campaign goals as players should do before any campaign.
I admit to having had my perspective skewed more than a bit by reading through posts here -- where the majority of posts and arguments do in fact lead one to that conclusion. It may be kinda rude, and my particular way of mentioning it may be condescending, but neither changes that it is how I've come to see things based on comments and posts here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Honestly, MAD is a somewhat misleading description, imo. Rangers and Monks are both primarily weapon attack focused classes, and neither strongly emphasizes the use of their WIS DC for major class features in the same way a dedicated caster does.
They're both primary Dex, secondary Wis, but ignoring the Wisdom entirely significantly weakens them.
For Monks very few subclasses use the Ki save, and mostly for supplemental effects on top of attacks. Sun Soul uses it for casting Burning Hands- a half on save spell- after already taking the attack action or for their infinitely spammable mini fireball; Dragon uses it for the half on save AoE attack that replaces a single attack roll, their bonus action for the duration aura, and as a save or suck bonus damage when they activate said aura; Open Hand uses it for the free rider options to FoB. About the only one besides Astral Soul that makes heavy use of it is Elements, which admittedly is not a great subclass, but that’s one subclass falling through, not an overall design failure. For the class itself, only Stunning Strike- a rider option on all melee attacks- uses it, and considering how potent the effect is and that it uses 0 additional action economy, it’s honestly a fair trade to make it marginally less likely to succeed than something like Hold Person.
Half their Armor Class comes from Wis. Combined with Stunning strike and their subclass powers, that's a lot of incentive for not neglecting Wisdom. (Especially since Stunning burns the scarce resource they need for maximum melee effectiveness, so you can't just spam it until the enemy blows a save.)
For Rangers, Drakewarden has a large AoE, high damage half on save breath attack; Fey Wanderer has a reaction to attempt to reflect a charm or frighten condition; Monster Slayer has a once per rest pseudo Counterspell; Swarmkeeper has an option to attempt a shove when an attack hits. None of these are cornerstone features to a build. Does pinch on spellcasting, but there’s a good number of options that don’t rely on DC; Lightning Arrow, for example, is still functionally doing 4d8 extra damage to the main target even if the weapon attack misses and the target makes the save. No, you’re not blasting the same way a Wizard would, but presumably if you wanted to do that you’d play a Wizard.
You're never blasting like a wizard, but sacrificing both save spells and spell attack spells leaves you fairly limited on one of your major features.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
Because Con can never be entirely ignored, that's more-or-less what MADifying all the classes would do. (In practice, "less attribute dependance" becomes a feature one can use as part of design.)
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
The people who want to optimize their murder output would adjust pretty quickly; it'd give them whole new build options to tinker with.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).
Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.
That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
Because Con can never be entirely ignored, that's more-or-less what MADifying all the classes would do. (In practice, "less attribute dependance" becomes a feature one can use as part of design.)
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
The people who want to optimize their murder output would adjust pretty quickly; it'd give them whole new build options to tinker with.
Yes, exactly why I mentioned it, lol. I have found that it makes them very different in how folks approach using their ability scores. In general, I try to make using any stat as a dump difficult and painful from a development start.
And in my experience, the murder hobos are the best testers of such systems, lol, because they see it as a great challenge -- and it can highlight areas of need. I do get really bored of thier metagaming about it, though. The time to argue about who does more damage with a dull, found battle axe is not while having a fight with the horde of undead...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).
Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.
That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.
That also presumes structurally using a foundation that matches existing core setting systems, and that they game retains the concept of bounded accuracy. But this also drives hm my point about the game being based in the core efforts around optimization. Which undermines campaign structures and requires a limited set of creative options.
So to say "nobody forces you" is incorrect -- indeed, if the math is functionally structured for that, then it *does* force you.
When you set the structure at three abilities for each class, then suddenly the primary stat can vary within each class according tot he player's goals and build (expanding the build options and possibilities), while still enabling one to gain those increases if not meeting the math, even if you choose to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a cleric with low wisdom.
You note that the default is a 70% chance of success, mechanically, which is unpleasant in a game here growth is a major component, because it means there is no growth to reach that point. I tend to favor a 50% success rate base myself -- so from the start, I am going to look to ways to reduce that, and all of it is because that's how my player group likes it.
But we are headed by a bunch of crotchety old folks (the OG players), so we have strange ideas from the old days...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It's funny how points of view are, since that seems like a disadvantage to me. It makes combat much more difficult to balance, and is one of the reasons why CR in 5e doesn't work (nor will it work in 5e Revised, you'll see).
In any case, I am not asking that they remove the bounded accuracy, let me be clear. Among other things because that is a Santa Claus letter. WoTC is not going to make such a radical change even if they are threatened with a gun. Besides, that would bring them too close to PF2, and it's okay that there are different game systems for different people (or different times). What I am saying is that the fact that MAD classes and subclasses are a problem is the fault of bounded accuracy. If not, you could play much better around that. And the lack of customization, or the almost obligation to minmax, also comes from there.
I've been thinking about this, and I have to say I think you are incorrect. I've been playing PF2 occasionally with one of my groups, and you absolutely feel the difference in min/maxed vs not-min-maxed characters there as well, even when it is a MAD class like an Archer that has DEX for attacks and STR for damage. The main mechanical difference for why you have decent 2nd, 3rd and 4th abilities in PF2 is that you routine level up ASIs require you to pick 4 different abilities to increase. So I think the actual problem with 5e is that it was designed around having ASIs and Feats be a trade off as that means your ASIs need to be in short supply so that it "hurts" to skip one in order to take a feat.
Sorry, not got PC access at moment, so hard to edit. My points are more fundamental to how the system is designed, as you can see from Ain_undos's posts, for MAD too truly work, you have to redefine the ways ability modifiers work but this conflicts with a basic design point, which is that one d&d is too be backwards compatible, you would have to go back and alter multiple subclasses, if not more.
One would not have to do anything like what they advocate in order to make the classes MAD.
It's not that I am against your ideas in principle, it is that I do not think them compatible with what one d&d is trying to achieve, which I would say is to be a 5.5e.
Fundamentally the ability scores & modifiers were designed for a more simplistic approach. So instead of trying to do something more becoming of an entire new edition of D&D it is better to focus on less things and do them well then a lot if things and do them poorly. In the current design it would not take much work to make MAD classes SAD, it already happened for pact of the blade warlock but too make all classes MAD takes significantly more work outside of subclasses.
Reworking the classes in either direction is too large a change for back-compatibility at the subclass level. Paladin, in particular, would need a serious rework if you wanted to remove either Str or Cha. Ranger (and also Paladin) would become very conceptually weird if you put either combat on a mental stat or spellcasting on a physical stat. (The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that letting warlocks do it is a design mistake.) Monk subclasses would probably all need a rework.
But it could've been done, with a slightly different level of compatibility. (Disallow mixing of old/new classes with new/old subclasses, which was probably a good idea, anyway.)
I say it could've been done, because I can look at the classes and see how I'd do it, and I'm not some super-genius game designer. (I'm also aware it'd be more complicated than it looks at first glance, because it'd not be my first rodeo.) Now, I'm not going to, because if I wanted to rebuild all the classes, I'd be being somewhat more radical.
Paladin doesn't need a big rework, just set Aura of Protection to a static +2, remove the Charisma from it and give Paladin's the option to replace strength with Charisma on attacks, thematically their oath guides their actions and their (weapon) strikes. Remove strength checks for armour, since you already have proficiency. That really isn't hard. Now add the ability for Paladin to benefit from WIS? from INT? Paladin gets initiative and saving throw from DEX already... which isn't much but DEX based paladin is possible, so hard to rebalance.
Ranger going to Wisdom would be difficult but not impossible, however it would be easier to just let Ranger switch any checks that use WIS with DEX and change the few spells that remain so that they do not have DCs. Overall, really isn't that difficult to change the 4 classes, Barbarian would be easiest since they barely use DEX at all. Monk could also be updated to Unarmored defence being 12+DEX+PB and have their save DC be based on Dexterity.
It's funny how points of view are, since that seems like a disadvantage to me. It makes combat much more difficult to balance, and is one of the reasons why CR in 5e doesn't work (nor will it work in 5e Revised, you'll see).
In any case, I am not asking that they remove the bounded accuracy, let me be clear. Among other things because that is a Santa Claus letter. WoTC is not going to make such a radical change even if they are threatened with a gun. Besides, that would bring them too close to PF2, and it's okay that there are different game systems for different people (or different times). What I am saying is that the fact that MAD classes and subclasses are a problem is the fault of bounded accuracy. If not, you could play much better around that. And the lack of customization, or the almost obligation to minmax, also comes from there.
I've been thinking about this, and I have to say I think you are incorrect. I've been playing PF2 occasionally with one of my groups, and you absolutely feel the difference in min/maxed vs not-min-maxed characters there as well, even when it is a MAD class like an Archer that has DEX for attacks and STR for damage. The main mechanical difference for why you have decent 2nd, 3rd and 4th abilities in PF2 is that you routine level up ASIs require you to pick 4 different abilities to increase. So I think the actual problem with 5e is that it was designed around having ASIs and Feats be a trade off as that means your ASIs need to be in short supply so that it "hurts" to skip one in order to take a feat.
I am not going to go into a detailed analysis since this is not the place. But after having run several Adventures Paths, and having played many others, I assure you that you can do quite well without minimaxing like you do in 5e. That doesn't mean you'll do well if you throw your primary stat in the trash (which is hard to do, on the other hand. Since when you build your character, your choices will probably lead you to have a good base score in your primary stat if you choose with common sense). But since stats have a lower weight in the bonus, you can live without obsessing about having the most in your primary attribute. In 5e your stat will be, at least, 50% of your bonus. When not all your bonus on most saving throws or skills without proficiency.
In any case, each game system has its strengths and weaknesses. And I don't think we're here to discuss PF2 either.
The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).
Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.
That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.
It's way looser than that. The system has to be built with that expectation, because it's so easy to do, but it has to keep working if people don't, and it does.
Being slightly less effective is not a big deal, especially if you're trading effectiveness in your main thing for effectiveness at your second thing. If your 4th level monk goes wisdom instead of dex, you'll probably spam stunning strike instead of flurry of blows, but they're both good options.
For those voting "No", which classes should be MAD? and which classes should be SAD? and why?
Half-casters should be MAD, the rest should be SAD.
Being MAD for half-casters should be a choice: you either go martial with some spells that still work with zero caster stat, or you go spellcaster with a weapon and features that reward managing resources properly.
Monk, on the other hand, must be SAD. It only has one aspect, the martial aspect. Making it require two ability scores to function on a basic level for no other reason than fluff is incompetent design. What if we made barbarian rage damage bonus depend on Wis because primal something something? What if battlemaster maneuvers DC was determined by Int? Why, monk save DC is determined by Wis, so why not? Sorry, I'm ranting, but monk is my sore spot. The class is crippled by design for no good reason.
Barbarian being MAD isn't a big deal. Just put on medium armor and you don't need more than 14 Dex. Their unarmored defense is more of a fluff feature anyway.
Bladelock, on another hand, is a case of SAD class that should be MAD. Str/Dex if you want to go martial with spells, Cha if you want to go caster with a weapon. It requires some basic defensive features like medium armor training to be able to go martial though.
Monk could just be WIS. The theme is that they have mental control of self. Don't think of it as being lightning fast but rather that their stillness of mind allows them to slow everything around them down and then they feel like they are acting normally. It doesn't look like that to others but I suppose we each perceive the world through our own minds. ;)
Let them use WIS for attack bonuses and initiative and power all their abilities off of it. The unarmored defense could stay a little MAD I suppose without making the Monk feel terribly MAD (kinda like barb). Or you could just make is 12+WIS at early levels and maybe bump it in a later tier.
It's funny how points of view are, since that seems like a disadvantage to me. It makes combat much more difficult to balance, and is one of the reasons why CR in 5e doesn't work (nor will it work in 5e Revised, you'll see).
In any case, I am not asking that they remove the bounded accuracy, let me be clear. Among other things because that is a Santa Claus letter. WoTC is not going to make such a radical change even if they are threatened with a gun. Besides, that would bring them too close to PF2, and it's okay that there are different game systems for different people (or different times). What I am saying is that the fact that MAD classes and subclasses are a problem is the fault of bounded accuracy. If not, you could play much better around that. And the lack of customization, or the almost obligation to minmax, also comes from there.
I think it would actually be better to go the other way and make all classes MAD somehow to allow for more variations in build/playstyle for a class.
One would not have to do anything like what they advocate in order to make the classes MAD.
Reworking the classes in either direction is too large a change for back-compatibility at the subclass level. Paladin, in particular, would need a serious rework if you wanted to remove either Str or Cha. Ranger (and also Paladin) would become very conceptually weird if you put either combat on a mental stat or spellcasting on a physical stat. (The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that letting warlocks do it is a design mistake.) Monk subclasses would probably all need a rework.
But it could've been done, with a slightly different level of compatibility. (Disallow mixing of old/new classes with new/old subclasses, which was probably a good idea, anyway.)
I say it could've been done, because I can look at the classes and see how I'd do it, and I'm not some super-genius game designer. (I'm also aware it'd be more complicated than it looks at first glance, because it'd not be my first rodeo.) Now, I'm not going to, because if I wanted to rebuild all the classes, I'd be being somewhat more radical.
Honestly, MAD is a somewhat misleading description, imo. Rangers and Monks are both primarily weapon attack focused classes, and neither strongly emphasizes the use of their WIS DC for major class features in the same way a dedicated caster does.
For Monks very few subclasses use the Ki save, and mostly for supplemental effects on top of attacks. Sun Soul uses it for casting Burning Hands- a half on save spell- after already taking the attack action or for their infinitely spammable mini fireball; Dragon uses it for the half on save AoE attack that replaces a single attack roll, their bonus action for the duration aura, and as a save or suck bonus damage when they activate said aura; Open Hand uses it for the free rider options to FoB. About the only one besides Astral Soul that makes heavy use of it is Elements, which admittedly is not a great subclass, but that’s one subclass falling through, not an overall design failure. For the class itself, only Stunning Strike- a rider option on all melee attacks- uses it, and considering how potent the effect is and that it uses 0 additional action economy, it’s honestly a fair trade to make it marginally less likely to succeed than something like Hold Person.
For Rangers, Drakewarden has a large AoE, high damage half on save breath attack; Fey Wanderer has a reaction to attempt to reflect a charm or frighten condition; Monster Slayer has a once per rest pseudo Counterspell; Swarmkeeper has an option to attempt a shove when an attack hits. None of these are cornerstone features to a build. Does pinch on spellcasting, but there’s a good number of options that don’t rely on DC; Lightning Arrow, for example, is still functionally doing 4d8 extra damage to the main target even if the weapon attack misses and the target makes the save. No, you’re not blasting the same way a Wizard would, but presumably if you wanted to do that you’d play a Wizard.
And using point-buy and the Tasha’s rule for racial ASI any character can have two 16’s and a 12 out of the gate without dumping another stat below 10. The distribution is not particularly flexible, but it still covers a good suite of skills and Rangers as of Tasha’s and 1D&D have some expertise to round that out, while Monks just aren’t a skill-oriented class. All in all, the classes aren’t going to massively suffer because they can’t max WIS alongside DEX.
That's incorrect.
Ability score requirements are not critical to the system.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They’re a part of what makes the system recognizable as D&D. As has been said, if you’re overhauling the system that fundamentally, you’re essentially creating a new system. And if you want to do that, more power to you, but the SDCoIWCh stat array and the general distribution of what class prioritizes what stat is way too much of a pillar to what people recognize as D&D to pull.
Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.
That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.
That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.
I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I didn't mention the stat array or ability score prioritization, I said ability score requirements.
making them independent of requirements is a part of the initial comment to make the classes independent of ability scores (and is easiest to achieve that way). It, also, did not mention prioritization or stat arrays.
I don't disagree that the standard six score array (which, technically, is a variable of 6 to 10, historically, and can be as much as 8 right now) is a key aspect of the game -- but you can rename them and it would still be d&d (a ship of theseus argument doesn't work for D&D) -- the key is that they exist and operate within a core 3d6 paradigm, mechanically.
And I do think that prioritization is an important part of classes mechanically -- it is part of what serves to guide creation and helps to define the class archetype.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Setting aside the tacit implication that D&D players are primarily power gamers who are only interested in seeing big numbers, which is kinda rude and condescending, the game currently doesn’t actually require any minimum numbers to play one class. The hard stat requirements are for multi-classing and some heavy armor. There’s no rule against dumping your class’ primary stat big you want to try a quirk roleplay and/or build. Now, not every group will appreciate or be open to that, but that’s just a matter of sorting out group campaign goals as players should do before any campaign.
I admit to having had my perspective skewed more than a bit by reading through posts here -- where the majority of posts and arguments do in fact lead one to that conclusion. It may be kinda rude, and my particular way of mentioning it may be condescending, but neither changes that it is how I've come to see things based on comments and posts here.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They're both primary Dex, secondary Wis, but ignoring the Wisdom entirely significantly weakens them.
Half their Armor Class comes from Wis. Combined with Stunning strike and their subclass powers, that's a lot of incentive for not neglecting Wisdom. (Especially since Stunning burns the scarce resource they need for maximum melee effectiveness, so you can't just spam it until the enemy blows a save.)
You're never blasting like a wizard, but sacrificing both save spells and spell attack spells leaves you fairly limited on one of your major features.
Because Con can never be entirely ignored, that's more-or-less what MADifying all the classes would do. (In practice, "less attribute dependance" becomes a feature one can use as part of design.)The people who want to optimize their murder output would adjust pretty quickly; it'd give them whole new build options to tinker with.
The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).
Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.
That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.
Yes, exactly why I mentioned it, lol. I have found that it makes them very different in how folks approach using their ability scores. In general, I try to make using any stat as a dump difficult and painful from a development start.
And in my experience, the murder hobos are the best testers of such systems, lol, because they see it as a great challenge -- and it can highlight areas of need. I do get really bored of thier metagaming about it, though. The time to argue about who does more damage with a dull, found battle axe is not while having a fight with the horde of undead...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That also presumes structurally using a foundation that matches existing core setting systems, and that they game retains the concept of bounded accuracy. But this also drives hm my point about the game being based in the core efforts around optimization. Which undermines campaign structures and requires a limited set of creative options.
So to say "nobody forces you" is incorrect -- indeed, if the math is functionally structured for that, then it *does* force you.
When you set the structure at three abilities for each class, then suddenly the primary stat can vary within each class according tot he player's goals and build (expanding the build options and possibilities), while still enabling one to gain those increases if not meeting the math, even if you choose to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a cleric with low wisdom.
You note that the default is a 70% chance of success, mechanically, which is unpleasant in a game here growth is a major component, because it means there is no growth to reach that point. I tend to favor a 50% success rate base myself -- so from the start, I am going to look to ways to reduce that, and all of it is because that's how my player group likes it.
But we are headed by a bunch of crotchety old folks (the OG players), so we have strange ideas from the old days...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I've been thinking about this, and I have to say I think you are incorrect. I've been playing PF2 occasionally with one of my groups, and you absolutely feel the difference in min/maxed vs not-min-maxed characters there as well, even when it is a MAD class like an Archer that has DEX for attacks and STR for damage. The main mechanical difference for why you have decent 2nd, 3rd and 4th abilities in PF2 is that you routine level up ASIs require you to pick 4 different abilities to increase. So I think the actual problem with 5e is that it was designed around having ASIs and Feats be a trade off as that means your ASIs need to be in short supply so that it "hurts" to skip one in order to take a feat.
Paladin doesn't need a big rework, just set Aura of Protection to a static +2, remove the Charisma from it and give Paladin's the option to replace strength with Charisma on attacks, thematically their oath guides their actions and their (weapon) strikes. Remove strength checks for armour, since you already have proficiency. That really isn't hard. Now add the ability for Paladin to benefit from WIS? from INT? Paladin gets initiative and saving throw from DEX already... which isn't much but DEX based paladin is possible, so hard to rebalance.
Ranger going to Wisdom would be difficult but not impossible, however it would be easier to just let Ranger switch any checks that use WIS with DEX and change the few spells that remain so that they do not have DCs. Overall, really isn't that difficult to change the 4 classes, Barbarian would be easiest since they barely use DEX at all. Monk could also be updated to Unarmored defence being 12+DEX+PB and have their save DC be based on Dexterity.
I am not going to go into a detailed analysis since this is not the place. But after having run several Adventures Paths, and having played many others, I assure you that you can do quite well without minimaxing like you do in 5e. That doesn't mean you'll do well if you throw your primary stat in the trash (which is hard to do, on the other hand. Since when you build your character, your choices will probably lead you to have a good base score in your primary stat if you choose with common sense). But since stats have a lower weight in the bonus, you can live without obsessing about having the most in your primary attribute. In 5e your stat will be, at least, 50% of your bonus. When not all your bonus on most saving throws or skills without proficiency.
In any case, each game system has its strengths and weaknesses. And I don't think we're here to discuss PF2 either.
It's way looser than that. The system has to be built with that expectation, because it's so easy to do, but it has to keep working if people don't, and it does.
Being slightly less effective is not a big deal, especially if you're trading effectiveness in your main thing for effectiveness at your second thing. If your 4th level monk goes wisdom instead of dex, you'll probably spam stunning strike instead of flurry of blows, but they're both good options.
Half-casters should be MAD, the rest should be SAD.
Being MAD for half-casters should be a choice: you either go martial with some spells that still work with zero caster stat, or you go spellcaster with a weapon and features that reward managing resources properly.
Monk, on the other hand, must be SAD. It only has one aspect, the martial aspect. Making it require two ability scores to function on a basic level for no other reason than fluff is incompetent design. What if we made barbarian rage damage bonus depend on Wis because primal something something? What if battlemaster maneuvers DC was determined by Int? Why, monk save DC is determined by Wis, so why not? Sorry, I'm ranting, but monk is my sore spot. The class is crippled by design for no good reason.
Barbarian being MAD isn't a big deal. Just put on medium armor and you don't need more than 14 Dex. Their unarmored defense is more of a fluff feature anyway.
Bladelock, on another hand, is a case of SAD class that should be MAD. Str/Dex if you want to go martial with spells, Cha if you want to go caster with a weapon. It requires some basic defensive features like medium armor training to be able to go martial though.
Monk could just be WIS. The theme is that they have mental control of self. Don't think of it as being lightning fast but rather that their stillness of mind allows them to slow everything around them down and then they feel like they are acting normally. It doesn't look like that to others but I suppose we each perceive the world through our own minds. ;)
Let them use WIS for attack bonuses and initiative and power all their abilities off of it. The unarmored defense could stay a little MAD I suppose without making the Monk feel terribly MAD (kinda like barb). Or you could just make is 12+WIS at early levels and maybe bump it in a later tier.