Single Attribute Dependent (SAD). While I don’t believe all the classes should be SAD, I know some people think they should be. I would like to hear why or why not.
While I can understand the sentiment, there is a clear disparity between MAD and SAD classes. Two of the MAD classes have been considered underpowered for a while, being Ranger and Monk, while Barbarian isn't considered a powerhouse of damage, it is still valued for it's tankiness, due to rage. Meanwhile most people see Paladin as overpowered.
Monk and Barbarian are MAD for their unarmed defence, for Monk Wisdom also serves as their Ki/Discipline save DC on things like Stunning Strike, as Monk you don't even get armor proficiency, so you can't even don a magical piece of armor like studded leather +1. For Barbarian, I still consider their unarmored defence to be kind of a joke, you get better AC from half-plate and so all you need is 14 Dexterity, I still believe the best starting scores for Barbarian to be 17 (15+2), 14, 14 (13+1), 8, 12 10, with this your starting AC would be 14, or exactly the same as a piece of Hide Armour. You can't get CON or DEX 16 with this until level 4 (getting CON or DEX instead of STR? unlikely), by that point you can easily get scale, or perhaps a breastplate if trying to avoid the stealth disadvantage... then you can get +1/+2/+3 armors later on. As a Barbarian 14 Dex and Medium armour is just the best option, else wise Dex is nearly pointless past initiative and dexterity saving throws.
For ranger, Wisdom is their spellcasting modifier, it is also related to a few of their abilities, for things like survival checks while several subclasses also benefit from it. Overall, you don't need Wisdom but it helps a lot if you actually want to do things, such as cast spells like Conjurer Barrage.
As for Paladin, Charisma is their spellcasting modifier, it is also used by Aura of Protection. The power of Aura of Protection is so great that Paladin actually benefits significantly from it and Paladin's general weakness is ranged attacks, with a single level dip into Hexblade Warlock, all but 1 of Paladin's issues (low initiative) are resolved, they get ranged cantrips and can use Charisma as their weapon's ability modifier, the Paladin class was not designed for this. Further too this, Paladin gets Divine Smite, which doesn't use their charisma score, so if you want to ignore charisma you can, you'd still get a minimum of a +1 to all saves with Aura of Protection, you also get lay on hands that is based on class level, it's just a pool of healing. Also paladin going heavy armour on top, which requires 13 (or 15 for plate) strength. Paladin has so many things that don't use either of their ability scores but then benefit heavily from both.
So with the exception of Paladin, all being MAD does for these classes is to be a hindrance to them, as for Paladin, going STR or CHA gives so much, it's unquestionable that they are overpowered and then can take a single level dip to go SAD. Currently I believe Paladin is the only class that justifies being MAD, Monk, Ranger and Barbarian do not, so either they should be SAD or be buffed in such a way that being MAD actually grants the relevant/required benefits for actually increasing those alternative ability scores.
As far as Paladin goes, I think Paladin's lay on hands and divine smite should have more related to CHA, Divine smite should be 1d8+CHA (minimum 0) damage while lay on hands should heal CHA (minimum 1) health per level of Paladin. Paladin already has a subclass which makes Paladin more SAD, which is Oath of Devotion, their channel divinity option, Sacred Weapon adds CHA to their attack, the only issue is the channel divinity costs an action, latest UA goes to a bonus action, which actually makes Paladin more able to go SAD with Oath of Devotion, just needing strength for Heavy Armour. I think then other sub-classes should also have things adjusted more to CHA, Oath of Vengeance could have vow of enmity switched to PB+CHA rounds (instead of 1 minute (10 rounds)) but can switch to a new target as a bonus action when their current target falls to 0HP.
MAD classes just need far more effort to balance and currently the SAD classes aren't even balanced to each other, I think the design should be simplified first, so that classes can be more appropriately balanced and then MAD brought in with subclasses, like Swashbuckler for Rogue or Eldritch Knight for fighter.
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.
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.
For those voting "No", which classes should be MAD? and which classes should be SAD? and why?
I'd argue that the game would be better designed if pretty much every class/subclass combo were MAD.
Given the current state of MAD classes, I'd say that's overly optimistic, I think we'd just get a significant messier game that is far worse designed. Considering they can't even balance SAD properly, dunno how you think they could balance out MAD properly since SAD is easier than MAD to balance.
I'd argue that the game would be better designed if pretty much every class/subclass combo were MAD.
Given the current state of MAD classes, I'd say that's overly optimistic, I think we'd just get a significant messier game that is far worse designed. Considering they can't even balance SAD properly, dunno how you think they could balance out MAD properly since SAD is easier than MAD to balance.
Even if you don't think the current D&D designers are capable of doing it, that doesn't change the general principle. (I am of the opinion that it's well within what I've seen of their capabilities, especially since tight balance is both impossible and unnecessary.)
Also, why is SAD easier to balance? It's lacking one of the basic balancing tools: forcing tradeoffs.
It's not going to happen, because it's a much bigger rework than there's any evidence that they've considered, but it's entirely doable under the current framework, and it'd be a more interesting game for it.
I'd argue that the game would be better designed if pretty much every class/subclass combo were MAD.
Given the current state of MAD classes, I'd say that's overly optimistic, I think we'd just get a significant messier game that is far worse designed. Considering they can't even balance SAD properly, dunno how you think they could balance out MAD properly since SAD is easier than MAD to balance.
Even if you don't think the current D&D designers are capable of doing it, that doesn't change the general principle. (I am of the opinion that it's well within what I've seen of their capabilities, especially since tight balance is both impossible and unnecessary.)
Also, why is SAD easier to balance? It's lacking one of the basic balancing tools: forcing tradeoffs.
It's not going to happen, because it's a much bigger rework than there's any evidence that they've considered, but it's entirely doable under the current framework, and it'd be a more interesting game for it.
And what are the trade-offs of the current MAD classes? Is Monk viable with going Wisdom over Dexterity or Ranger? Is Barbarian actually getting that much out of Dexterity. There is no real trade offs with the way they design the MAD classes that already exist. It would be nice if they could do that but there is really only one class that has such an option and that's fighter, who can go strength or dexterity but not both, since going both others such little benefit.
The attributes themselves have not been designed in a way to really work like that and so I do not believe under the current framework, what you say is actually "entirely doable" is really true, the game is currently designed around maximizing a single attribute, be that Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma and then getting a good amount of Constitution, which is a big part of the issue with MAD classes, with the exception of Paladin, most classes really don't get a big benefit from working on a second attribute and even with Paladin we have seen many go for the dip into warlock to go to being SAD.
Add on top of this, how many times do you actually get to increase attributes in a game of D&D, most classes it is levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19, where the UA ends out we will need to see but right now most campaigns end out around the level 11~13 meaning most characters never get more than 2 or 3 ASI/feat choices, there is already trade-offs between maximizing your attribute and taking feats at play, let alone ensuring each class has at least 2 (if not more) attributes that all equally viable for them, which again, there is already an issue in 5e where some classes are simply less powerful or useful than other classes. Which is why I say, first get one thing right before moving on to a second thing, else all you'll get is feature bloat and nothing good will come out of that.
Even if you don't think the current D&D designers are capable of doing it, that doesn't change the general principle. (I am of the opinion that it's well within what I've seen of their capabilities, especially since tight balance is both impossible and unnecessary.)
Also, why is SAD easier to balance? It's lacking one of the basic balancing tools: forcing tradeoffs.
It's not going to happen, because it's a much bigger rework than there's any evidence that they've considered, but it's entirely doable under the current framework, and it'd be a more interesting game for it.
And what are the trade-offs of the current MAD classes? Is Monk viable with going Wisdom over Dexterity or Ranger? Is Barbarian actually getting that much out of Dexterity. There is no real trade offs with the way they design the MAD classes that already exist. It would be nice if they could do that but there is really only one class that has such an option and that's fighter, who can go strength or dexterity but not both, since going both others such little benefit.
The fundamental tradeoff of MAD classes is not that you go one or the other, it's that you have to choose which set of abilities to prioritize. You can't be great at everything you can do. You can be ok at everything, or good at some and eh at others. (Or great at some and bad at others, but that ought to be a poor choice.)
And that has obvious problems in a game where most of the classes can be great at everything they do. If everyone were MAD, that goes away.
The Monk's a good example of how it works. You get to trade combat effectiveness and effectiveness with your powers. It has design problems, but those would not go away if it could just build around a single stat. It'd still have resource-starvation problems, be a bit underpowered for a melee combatant, and be a generalist in a world of specialists. (Not actually a problem, but it makes it look bad to the optimizers.)
The Barbarian's an example of how it doesn't work. Barbs aren't really MAD. They have exactly one ability that's Dex-based, so it makes no sense to prioritize Dex.
The attributes themselves have not been designed in a way to really work like that and so I do not believe under the current framework, what you say is actually "entirely doable" is really true, the game is currently designed around maximizing a single attribute, be that Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma and then getting a good amount of Constitution, which is a big part of the issue with MAD classes, with the exception of Paladin, most classes really don't get a big benefit from working on a second attribute and even with Paladin we have seen many go for the dip into warlock to go to being SAD.
What you're saying here is "the game is designed with mostly SAD classes, so everyone just maxes out their important stat."
If the game were designed around MAD classes, that would be no longer true, and people would have to make more and different choices.
The thing is, nothing goes wrong if that happens. The game still works just fine if +5 stat bonuses are an unusual thing at low-mid levels. If +3 and +4 are what you see, characters remain effective. You miss a bit more often. Things save slightly more. Maybe you're slightly less durable. You don't start to suck.
Since there's a not-uncommon complaint (that I don't really agree with) that characters are too powerful, maybe this would "fix" that.
Add on top of this, how many times do you actually get to increase attributes in a game of D&D, most classes it is levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19, where the UA ends out we will need to see but right now most campaigns end out around the level 11~13 meaning most characters never get more than 2 or 3 ASI/feat choices, there is already trade-offs between maximizing your attribute and taking feats at play, let alone ensuring each class has at least 2 (if not more) attributes that all equally viable for them, which again, there is already an issue in 5e where some classes are simply less powerful or useful than other classes. Which is why I say, first get one thing right before moving on to a second thing, else all you'll get is feature bloat and nothing good will come out of that.
The feats question is an issue, though not a particularly hard one to fix. Just give out more feats. The playtest changes are already moving this way. Add, say a level 6 feat to the level one one, and I think you'd be fine on that end.
Of course, it's actually somewhat more complex than we're saying, because we've actually got a mix of one-stat (non-melee casters), two-stat (most everyone who needs con), and three-stat (monks, paladins, maybe rangers) classes.
STR- Melee Attack roll and damage. Max Range on thrown and ranged weapons. Climb speed bonus/penalty. Swim speed bonus/penalty. Jump distance. Carry capacity. DEX- Thrown and ranged attack roll/damage. Spellcasting attack rolls. Finesse weapon attack roll, but not damage, AC. CON- HP, Concentration, bonus healing from spells and potions. INT- Spells known and/or Spells prepared for all casters. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. Wizard and Artificer spell DC WIS- Cleric and Druid Spell DC. Max range on spells. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. CHA- Bard, Sorcerer Spell DC, and Warlock Spell DC. Bonus/Penalty to leveled spell damage.
This list isnt comprehensive, but if you spread everything out across the stats at the very least players stop dumping stats
Yeah I think everyone could be a little more MAD than SAD. The system seems shallow now because there are no tradeoffs. For the most part, classes care about 1 stat (maybe 2), and stats don't do enough baseline to really add a lot to your character if they aren't tied to a specific feature. I would prefer if every class or subclass cared about 2 stats and they tied more stuff to ability scores (especially the dumpable ones like strength). Saves could use a revamp as well, and could go a long way in making all the stats feel important.
You should feel like you want every stat for something, and that just isn't the case right now.
STR- Melee Attack roll and damage. Max Range on thrown and ranged weapons. Climb speed bonus/penalty. Swim speed bonus/penalty. Jump distance. Carry capacity. DEX- Thrown and ranged attack roll/damage. Spellcasting attack rolls. Finesse weapon attack roll, but not damage, AC. CON- HP, Concentration, bonus healing from spells and potions. INT- Spells known and/or Spells prepared for all casters. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. Wizard and Artificer spell DC WIS- Cleric and Druid Spell DC. Max range on spells. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. CHA- Bard, Sorcerer Spell DC, and Warlock Spell DC. Bonus/Penalty to leveled spell damage.
This list isnt comprehensive, but if you spread everything out across the stats at the very least players stop dumping stats
Hm.. how about a more evenly balanced one because INT & CHA are clearly better than WIS for casters, and STR is still clearly better for weapon users...
STR - damage rolls for all weapons, all movement speeds DEX - attack rolls for all weapons, initiative, AC CON - HP, Concentration INT - skill, and language proficiencies & maximum spells known/prepared. WIS - all spell DCs, and all spell attack rolls, number of tool, weapon and armour proficiencies CHA - all spell damage
Weapons = 1d20+DEX to hit, 1dX+STR damage Walking Speed = 30 + 5*STR modifier ft Skill proficiencies = number of skills of your choice equal to 2 + your INT modifier (minimum 0) Spell DC = 8+WIS+proficiency bonus Spell Attack = 1d20+WIS Spell Damage = XdX + CHA * the level of the spell slot used to cast the spell (or 0.5 if it was a cantrip) Amour levels: 1. Light 2. Medium + Shield 3. Heavy You gain proficiency up the the level of armour equal to your Wisdom modifier, and a number of weapons from your class list equal to your level + your WIS modifier (minimum 1). Spells known/prepared = your level + your INT modifier (minimum 1)
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.
My fear if the game gets to number crunchy we will lose the ability to roll real dice around the table and calculate results quickly. I have a pretty big dice collection and I would hate for that to become a thing of the past and the use of digital tools being the only way to play. Maybe we save that number crunch for 6e, then I can be one of those angry old guys who refuses to move to the new edition lol.
STR- Melee Attack roll and damage. Max Range on thrown and ranged weapons. Climb speed bonus/penalty. Swim speed bonus/penalty. Jump distance. Carry capacity. DEX- Thrown and ranged attack roll/damage. Spellcasting attack rolls. Finesse weapon attack roll, but not damage, AC. CON- HP, Concentration, bonus healing from spells and potions. INT- Spells known and/or Spells prepared for all casters. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. Wizard and Artificer spell DC WIS- Cleric and Druid Spell DC. Max range on spells. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. CHA- Bard, Sorcerer Spell DC, and Warlock Spell DC. Bonus/Penalty to leveled spell damage.
This list isnt comprehensive, but if you spread everything out across the stats at the very least players stop dumping stats
Hm.. how about a more evenly balanced one because INT & CHA are clearly better than WIS for casters, and STR is still clearly better for weapon users...
STR - damage rolls for all weapons, all movement speeds DEX - attack rolls for all weapons, initiative, AC CON - HP, Concentration INT - skill, and language proficiencies & maximum spells known/prepared. WIS - all spell DCs, and all spell attack rolls, number of tool, weapon and armour proficiencies CHA - all spell damage
Weapons = 1d20+DEX to hit, 1dX+STR damage Walking Speed = 30 + 5*STR modifier ft Skill proficiencies = number of skills of your choice equal to 2 + your INT modifier (minimum 0) Spell DC = 8+WIS+proficiency bonus Spell Attack = 1d20+WIS Spell Damage = XdX + CHA * the level of the spell slot used to cast the spell (or 0.5 if it was a cantrip) Amour levels: 1. Light 2. Medium + Shield 3. Heavy You gain proficiency up the the level of armour equal to your Wisdom modifier, and a number of weapons from your class list equal to your level + your WIS modifier (minimum 1). Spells known/prepared = your level + your INT modifier (minimum 1)
I like most of what you did. I wouldn’t put all the classes spell dc on one stat because too strong and makes multiclassing too easy. I like all attack rolls being dex, I would include spell attack rolls as Dex as well. Forces casters to pick up physical stats.
I think range weapon damage has to dex as well, or at least the crossbow. Str shouldn’t have anything to do with crossbow damage. Maybe crossbows are the exception to the rule. They do have that loading property, so being an exception is cool. I think armor training should remain a feature, but there would be a penalty to AC if your wisdom is too low. Like you were trained to use this armor, but you didn’t understand it well. So light would require min 8 Wis, shields min 10 Wis, medium min 10 Wis, heavy min 12 Wis, so you lose 1 AC provided by the armor for every not meeting the minimum and every 2 under. So a fighter with 8 Wis wearing plate only gets 16 ac from the armor. 18AC - 2wis penalty= 16AC. I was going to make it 14 for plate but it already has a high Str requirement so I don’t want to make them too MAD. This is about finding that happy middle.
At this point we have stepped beyond d&d 5e and 5eR and are making in a wishlist for 6e. Lol, there is no way we are getting any of these changes.
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.
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.
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.
STR- Melee Attack roll and damage. Max Range on thrown and ranged weapons. Climb speed bonus/penalty. Swim speed bonus/penalty. Jump distance. Carry capacity. DEX- Thrown and ranged attack roll/damage. Spellcasting attack rolls. Finesse weapon attack roll, but not damage, AC. CON- HP, Concentration, bonus healing from spells and potions. INT- Spells known and/or Spells prepared for all casters. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. Wizard and Artificer spell DC WIS- Cleric and Druid Spell DC. Max range on spells. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. CHA- Bard, Sorcerer Spell DC, and Warlock Spell DC. Bonus/Penalty to leveled spell damage.
This list isnt comprehensive, but if you spread everything out across the stats at the very least players stop dumping stats
Something like this would probably be best. Design the attributes so each one governs something that ALL classes consider potentially vital. If, as an example, Strength governed running speed the party Wizard would feel a lot less okay dumping it and getting a movement speed penalty because suddenly they can't easily reposition in fights and become more exposed. It'd open the door to a wider variety of ways to play each class as there wouldn't necessarily be one stat spread that is obviously optimal. Or at least not so much more optimal as to make any deviation a sacrifice for flavor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Single Attribute Dependent (SAD). While I don’t believe all the classes should be SAD, I know some people think they should be. I would like to hear why or why not.
While I can understand the sentiment, there is a clear disparity between MAD and SAD classes. Two of the MAD classes have been considered underpowered for a while, being Ranger and Monk, while Barbarian isn't considered a powerhouse of damage, it is still valued for it's tankiness, due to rage. Meanwhile most people see Paladin as overpowered.
Monk and Barbarian are MAD for their unarmed defence, for Monk Wisdom also serves as their Ki/Discipline save DC on things like Stunning Strike, as Monk you don't even get armor proficiency, so you can't even don a magical piece of armor like studded leather +1. For Barbarian, I still consider their unarmored defence to be kind of a joke, you get better AC from half-plate and so all you need is 14 Dexterity, I still believe the best starting scores for Barbarian to be 17 (15+2), 14, 14 (13+1), 8, 12 10, with this your starting AC would be 14, or exactly the same as a piece of Hide Armour. You can't get CON or DEX 16 with this until level 4 (getting CON or DEX instead of STR? unlikely), by that point you can easily get scale, or perhaps a breastplate if trying to avoid the stealth disadvantage... then you can get +1/+2/+3 armors later on. As a Barbarian 14 Dex and Medium armour is just the best option, else wise Dex is nearly pointless past initiative and dexterity saving throws.
For ranger, Wisdom is their spellcasting modifier, it is also related to a few of their abilities, for things like survival checks while several subclasses also benefit from it. Overall, you don't need Wisdom but it helps a lot if you actually want to do things, such as cast spells like Conjurer Barrage.
As for Paladin, Charisma is their spellcasting modifier, it is also used by Aura of Protection. The power of Aura of Protection is so great that Paladin actually benefits significantly from it and Paladin's general weakness is ranged attacks, with a single level dip into Hexblade Warlock, all but 1 of Paladin's issues (low initiative) are resolved, they get ranged cantrips and can use Charisma as their weapon's ability modifier, the Paladin class was not designed for this. Further too this, Paladin gets Divine Smite, which doesn't use their charisma score, so if you want to ignore charisma you can, you'd still get a minimum of a +1 to all saves with Aura of Protection, you also get lay on hands that is based on class level, it's just a pool of healing. Also paladin going heavy armour on top, which requires 13 (or 15 for plate) strength. Paladin has so many things that don't use either of their ability scores but then benefit heavily from both.
So with the exception of Paladin, all being MAD does for these classes is to be a hindrance to them, as for Paladin, going STR or CHA gives so much, it's unquestionable that they are overpowered and then can take a single level dip to go SAD. Currently I believe Paladin is the only class that justifies being MAD, Monk, Ranger and Barbarian do not, so either they should be SAD or be buffed in such a way that being MAD actually grants the relevant/required benefits for actually increasing those alternative ability scores.
As far as Paladin goes, I think Paladin's lay on hands and divine smite should have more related to CHA, Divine smite should be 1d8+CHA (minimum 0) damage while lay on hands should heal CHA (minimum 1) health per level of Paladin. Paladin already has a subclass which makes Paladin more SAD, which is Oath of Devotion, their channel divinity option, Sacred Weapon adds CHA to their attack, the only issue is the channel divinity costs an action, latest UA goes to a bonus action, which actually makes Paladin more able to go SAD with Oath of Devotion, just needing strength for Heavy Armour. I think then other sub-classes should also have things adjusted more to CHA, Oath of Vengeance could have vow of enmity switched to PB+CHA rounds (instead of 1 minute (10 rounds)) but can switch to a new target as a bonus action when their current target falls to 0HP.
MAD classes just need far more effort to balance and currently the SAD classes aren't even balanced to each other, I think the design should be simplified first, so that classes can be more appropriately balanced and then MAD brought in with subclasses, like Swashbuckler for Rogue or Eldritch Knight for fighter.
For those voting "No", which classes should be MAD? and which classes should be SAD? and why?
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.
I'd argue that the game would be better designed if pretty much every class/subclass combo were MAD.
I voted for "more subclass options" because those are fun.
Given the current state of MAD classes, I'd say that's overly optimistic, I think we'd just get a significant messier game that is far worse designed. Considering they can't even balance SAD properly, dunno how you think they could balance out MAD properly since SAD is easier than MAD to balance.
Even if you don't think the current D&D designers are capable of doing it, that doesn't change the general principle. (I am of the opinion that it's well within what I've seen of their capabilities, especially since tight balance is both impossible and unnecessary.)
Also, why is SAD easier to balance? It's lacking one of the basic balancing tools: forcing tradeoffs.
It's not going to happen, because it's a much bigger rework than there's any evidence that they've considered, but it's entirely doable under the current framework, and it'd be a more interesting game for it.
And what are the trade-offs of the current MAD classes? Is Monk viable with going Wisdom over Dexterity or Ranger? Is Barbarian actually getting that much out of Dexterity. There is no real trade offs with the way they design the MAD classes that already exist. It would be nice if they could do that but there is really only one class that has such an option and that's fighter, who can go strength or dexterity but not both, since going both others such little benefit.
The attributes themselves have not been designed in a way to really work like that and so I do not believe under the current framework, what you say is actually "entirely doable" is really true, the game is currently designed around maximizing a single attribute, be that Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma and then getting a good amount of Constitution, which is a big part of the issue with MAD classes, with the exception of Paladin, most classes really don't get a big benefit from working on a second attribute and even with Paladin we have seen many go for the dip into warlock to go to being SAD.
Add on top of this, how many times do you actually get to increase attributes in a game of D&D, most classes it is levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19, where the UA ends out we will need to see but right now most campaigns end out around the level 11~13 meaning most characters never get more than 2 or 3 ASI/feat choices, there is already trade-offs between maximizing your attribute and taking feats at play, let alone ensuring each class has at least 2 (if not more) attributes that all equally viable for them, which again, there is already an issue in 5e where some classes are simply less powerful or useful than other classes. Which is why I say, first get one thing right before moving on to a second thing, else all you'll get is feature bloat and nothing good will come out of that.
The fundamental tradeoff of MAD classes is not that you go one or the other, it's that you have to choose which set of abilities to prioritize. You can't be great at everything you can do. You can be ok at everything, or good at some and eh at others. (Or great at some and bad at others, but that ought to be a poor choice.)
And that has obvious problems in a game where most of the classes can be great at everything they do. If everyone were MAD, that goes away.
The Monk's a good example of how it works. You get to trade combat effectiveness and effectiveness with your powers. It has design problems, but those would not go away if it could just build around a single stat. It'd still have resource-starvation problems, be a bit underpowered for a melee combatant, and be a generalist in a world of specialists. (Not actually a problem, but it makes it look bad to the optimizers.)
The Barbarian's an example of how it doesn't work. Barbs aren't really MAD. They have exactly one ability that's Dex-based, so it makes no sense to prioritize Dex.
What you're saying here is "the game is designed with mostly SAD classes, so everyone just maxes out their important stat."
If the game were designed around MAD classes, that would be no longer true, and people would have to make more and different choices.
The thing is, nothing goes wrong if that happens. The game still works just fine if +5 stat bonuses are an unusual thing at low-mid levels. If +3 and +4 are what you see, characters remain effective. You miss a bit more often. Things save slightly more. Maybe you're slightly less durable. You don't start to suck.
Since there's a not-uncommon complaint (that I don't really agree with) that characters are too powerful, maybe this would "fix" that.
The feats question is an issue, though not a particularly hard one to fix. Just give out more feats. The playtest changes are already moving this way. Add, say a level 6 feat to the level one one, and I think you'd be fine on that end.
Of course, it's actually somewhat more complex than we're saying, because we've actually got a mix of one-stat (non-melee casters), two-stat (most everyone who needs con), and three-stat (monks, paladins, maybe rangers) classes.
How to make all classes MAD
STR- Melee Attack roll and damage. Max Range on thrown and ranged weapons. Climb speed bonus/penalty. Swim speed bonus/penalty. Jump distance. Carry capacity.
DEX- Thrown and ranged attack roll/damage. Spellcasting attack rolls. Finesse weapon attack roll, but not damage, AC.
CON- HP, Concentration, bonus healing from spells and potions.
INT- Spells known and/or Spells prepared for all casters. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty. Wizard and Artificer spell DC
WIS- Cleric and Druid Spell DC. Max range on spells. Number of skill proficiencies bonus/penalty.
CHA- Bard, Sorcerer Spell DC, and Warlock Spell DC. Bonus/Penalty to leveled spell damage.
This list isnt comprehensive, but if you spread everything out across the stats at the very least players stop dumping stats
Yeah I think everyone could be a little more MAD than SAD. The system seems shallow now because there are no tradeoffs. For the most part, classes care about 1 stat (maybe 2), and stats don't do enough baseline to really add a lot to your character if they aren't tied to a specific feature. I would prefer if every class or subclass cared about 2 stats and they tied more stuff to ability scores (especially the dumpable ones like strength). Saves could use a revamp as well, and could go a long way in making all the stats feel important.
You should feel like you want every stat for something, and that just isn't the case right now.
Hm.. how about a more evenly balanced one because INT & CHA are clearly better than WIS for casters, and STR is still clearly better for weapon users...
STR - damage rolls for all weapons, all movement speeds
DEX - attack rolls for all weapons, initiative, AC
CON - HP, Concentration
INT - skill, and language proficiencies & maximum spells known/prepared.
WIS - all spell DCs, and all spell attack rolls, number of tool, weapon and armour proficiencies
CHA - all spell damage
Weapons = 1d20+DEX to hit, 1dX+STR damage
Walking Speed = 30 + 5*STR modifier ft
Skill proficiencies = number of skills of your choice equal to 2 + your INT modifier (minimum 0)
Spell DC = 8+WIS+proficiency bonus
Spell Attack = 1d20+WIS
Spell Damage = XdX + CHA * the level of the spell slot used to cast the spell (or 0.5 if it was a cantrip)
Amour levels:
1. Light
2. Medium + Shield
3. Heavy
You gain proficiency up the the level of armour equal to your Wisdom modifier, and a number of weapons from your class list equal to your level + your WIS modifier (minimum 1).
Spells known/prepared = your level + your INT modifier (minimum 1)
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.
My fear if the game gets to number crunchy we will lose the ability to roll real dice around the table and calculate results quickly. I have a pretty big dice collection and I would hate for that to become a thing of the past and the use of digital tools being the only way to play. Maybe we save that number crunch for 6e, then I can be one of those angry old guys who refuses to move to the new edition lol.
I like most of what you did. I wouldn’t put all the classes spell dc on one stat because too strong and makes multiclassing too easy. I like all attack rolls being dex, I would include spell attack rolls as Dex as well. Forces casters to pick up physical stats.
I think range weapon damage has to dex as well, or at least the crossbow. Str shouldn’t have anything to do with crossbow damage. Maybe crossbows are the exception to the rule. They do have that loading property, so being an exception is cool.
I think armor training should remain a feature, but there would be a penalty to AC if your wisdom is too low. Like you were trained to use this armor, but you didn’t understand it well. So light would require min 8 Wis, shields min 10 Wis, medium min 10 Wis, heavy min 12 Wis, so you lose 1 AC provided by the armor for every not meeting the minimum and every 2 under. So a fighter with 8 Wis wearing plate only gets 16 ac from the armor. 18AC - 2wis penalty= 16AC. I was going to make it 14 for plate but it already has a high Str requirement so I don’t want to make them too MAD. This is about finding that happy middle.
At this point we have stepped beyond d&d 5e and 5eR and are making in a wishlist for 6e. Lol, there is no way we are getting any of these changes.
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.
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.
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.
Something like this would probably be best. Design the attributes so each one governs something that ALL classes consider potentially vital. If, as an example, Strength governed running speed the party Wizard would feel a lot less okay dumping it and getting a movement speed penalty because suddenly they can't easily reposition in fights and become more exposed. It'd open the door to a wider variety of ways to play each class as there wouldn't necessarily be one stat spread that is obviously optimal. Or at least not so much more optimal as to make any deviation a sacrifice for flavor.