In a recent thread someone made an offhand comment that perhaps ability
scores should be tied to class rather than being rolled or point-bought.
So here's a specific proposal for discussion / comment / criticism:

DM picks a standard array of some sort -- could be the critter array
11/11/11/10/10/10 or the elite array 15/14/13/12/10/8 (IIRC) or anything
else s/he likes for the campaign. It might be appropriate to pick a
lesser array than usual because of the class-specific boosts. At first
CHARACTER level, MAD classes get +2 to two particular ability scores,
SAD get +2 to one.

Thus at first character level
- Wizard gets +2 Int
- Sorceror gets +2 Cha
- Fighters get their choice of +2 to any 2 of Str, Dex, Con
- Clerics get their choice of +2 to two of Str, Con, Wis.
- Paladin gets any 2 of Str, Con, Cha
- Monk might get +2 to 3 scores since they're the MADdest of all.

At 4th character level everybody still gets +1 to any one ability score.

At 4th, 8th, etc. CLASS level for the primary classes, everybody gets to
make the same choice as at first level but with +1 instead of +2. Thus
for example fighters get +1 to two of Str, Dex, Con, which can be a
different pair than at first level. Prestige classes don't get this
benefit, to give a little boost to the primary classes.

Parameters for tuning this scheme are
- which standard array to start with
- how big a plus to give at 1st level (+2 above, but could be +3 or
anything else that suits the campaign). Might want bigger 1st level
boosts if one starts with lesser arrays.
- which class level the next boost comes at (could be 5/10/15/20, for
example)
- how big a plus happens for the upper-level boosts (+1 as above, or
something bigger).
- whether to include prestige classes; my preference was to exclude them.

The person who made the original suggestion might have something else in
mind.

news:k3t7qg$k5f$1@dont-email.me...

At first glance this benefits MAD classes more than SAD classes, from a pure
numbers standpoint.
It also seems to be somewhat meta. And there's no intrinsic reason to base
this on a stat array -- a point buy or some sort of selective die rolling
dynamic would also work just as well.

On Sep 25, 2:30 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

If I wanted to play Final Fantasy instead of DnD, I would play Final
Fantasy instead of DnD.  The videogamization of DnD has already gone
way too far, it doesn't need to go further still.

On 9/25/12 7:43 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:

        How in the world is this Final Fantasy like? I see nothing of that sort
in the proposal.

        Now, if he mentioned getting special powers like Limit Breaks whenever
you were injured at 25%, 50%,etc., then we're talking.

--
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;    
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

I see nothing wrong with that.  MAD classes usually need the help, in a
point-buy or array situation.

Keith
--
Keith Davies                         "chain letter and chain mail...
keith.dav...@kjdavies.org             not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org         -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org

A curious idea.  It runs into a few problems, though.

Wizard generally doesn't _need_ +2 Int, since he gets to otherwise crank
it at every opportunity.

I might go (Str or Con), Wis, Cha instead (durability or heavy armor use
in combat, class abilities are mostly driven by Wis and Cha).  However,
clerics rarely need the help.

Wizards win again.  Even more now, since they get to add another five
points over twenty levels.  Why would they do anything but pump Int?

This might lead to a workable solution, but I would be cautious with it.

More and more I expect to ditch ability scores in Echelon.  If I must,
I'll group abilities by type (martial, arcane casting, divine
channeling, and so on) and just give _that_ a score.

I was about to say I'd rather see everything made a MAD class or a SAD
class, then realized if they were all SAD classes there's really not
point to having ability scores except a bit of color.  AFAICT D&D 4e
went this way, and this model seems to aim for something similar, where
everybody can be good at "all their class stuff".

Keith
--
Keith Davies                         "chain letter and chain mail...
keith.dav...@kjdavies.org             not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org         -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org

On Sep 25, 8:40 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

It's how class and attribute work in FF.  Base for race,a nd certain
adds per level for class.  I play FFTA all the time (because I don't
have anything else, not because I love it that much, though I like it
well enough)

On 9/26/12 2:06 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:

        That's awfully generic, though. I think I've seen that basic mechanic
in use for a long time -- maybe even for P&P systems back in the 1980s.

--
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;    
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[snip]
[snip]

People who want to play "MAD" classess are never satisfied unless their characters are overpowered compared to a "SAD" class of the same level and resource pool (i.e. stat allocation method and other base resources you build a character out of).

Time and again I've seen the debate, and NEVER do I see a concession that character concepts that have a dependency on multiple high stats should have to settle for generally lower, more balanaced stat sets.  NEVER is there a concession that a SAD class can have a few optimized really high scores and that such is part of the class power level balance scheme.

Paladin vs Fighter (power attack build):  The Paladin SHOULD NOT be able to match the pure fighter in raw combat power over time.  But he has other abilities that are assumed to create the balance.  His strength and constitution will almost certainly be lower, because he also needs good scores in other "Paladin stats"...  If the Paladin didn't have this recource bind, then he really wouldn't fall behind the fighter in any meaningful way.  And there would be no point in every playing that fighter.

MAD is a balance thing.  It you want one of these characters, you are giving up having the sharpest tools in exchange for having more of them.

On 9/26/12 2:38 PM, Alcore wrote:

        Or just ignore the whole idea of "balance" and let things work
themselves out, as they always do.

--
                      Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;    
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com  Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

I can largely agree, but not totally.

The MAD classes, while they may have a few more tools, _start_ with
tools that aren't as sharp.  A paladin, for example, doesn't have nearly
the same spell access or ability to turn undead that a cleric does (and
even clerical turning is pretty crap).  He's got a little bit at best of
those things.

Wizards and clerics, on the other hand, have frightfully large toolboxes
to work with... and need really focus on only one ability score.  Yeah,
the cleric loses a bit if he chooses to just pump Wisdom, but that's
likely still his best option -- he's got other ways to get hit points,
and turn undead is a crap ability anyway.

_In principle_ I don't have a problem with MAD characters -- built-in
gish, basically -- being more limited in each area than the SAD classes
they are related to... but D&D doesn't seem to do this well.

Keith
--
Keith Davies                         "chain letter and chain mail...
keith.dav...@kjdavies.org             not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org         -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org

news:f3e80c58-627d-4d23-a3b8-4839ab9bd5bb@googlegroups.com...
[snip]
[snip]

People who want to play "MAD" classess are never satisfied unless their
characters are overpowered compared to a "SAD" class of the same level and
resource pool (i.e. stat allocation method and other base resources you
build a character out of).

Time and again I've seen the debate, and NEVER do I see a concession that
character concepts that have a dependency on multiple high stats should have
to settle for generally lower, more balanaced stat sets.  NEVER is there a
concession that a SAD class can have a few optimized really high scores and
that such is part of the class power level balance scheme.

Paladin vs Fighter (power attack build):  The Paladin SHOULD NOT be able to
match the pure fighter in raw combat power over time.  But he has other
abilities that are assumed to create the balance.  His strength and
constitution will almost certainly be lower, because he also needs good
scores in other "Paladin stats"...  If the Paladin didn't have this recource
bind, then he really wouldn't fall behind the fighter in any meaningful way.
And there would be no point in every playing that fighter.

MAD is a balance thing.  It you want one of these characters, you are giving
up having the sharpest tools in exchange for having more of them.

I agree completely. I see no reason to buff MAD classes more to give them
stat parity with SAD classes, in light of the other abilities MAD classes
get. The goal is balance overall, not in each individual area. Going down
that road leads to bland generic characters.

On 26/09/2012 10:22 AM, Keith Davies wrote:

Helping MAD more than SAD was deliberate.

On 26/09/2012 10:29 AM, Keith Davies wrote:

The basic idea was that SAD classes get a boost to only one stat,
whereas MAD get boost to two or more to help "keep up".  There's a big
issue in what array you start with, though, which I didn't articulate
very well.  If you start with 15/14/13/12/10/8 which IIRC is the elite
array, the 1st level wizard probably gets 17 int, 14 con, 13 dex, the
others spread as you like. The 1st level tank fighter gets 17 con, 16
Str, 13 dex, etc. The 1st level archer gets 17 dex, 16 con or str
(depending on whether they expect ever to be in melee and need that much
con), 13 str or con (the other way around).  For DMs who think 17/16 is
overpowered, they can start with a lower "standard array" such as a 12
or 13 for the largest stat in the array.

So the "boost" for wizards and sorcerors in one stat could be set up as
the way to get their one stat to the level they'd do with a higher point
buy, where the MAD classes get boosts to enough other stats that they
can keep up.

And to those who think MAD is "balanced" with SAD already -- I think you
and I live on different planets, and there are plenty of people who live
on mine.

news:k40056$a8e$1@dont-email.me...

This also depends on which version of the game under consideration, too.
And if someone doesn't want to pay the price for a MAD class,  then they can
easily take a SAD one.  Or, maybe, they can take the class they want and
role-play it in an interesting matter instead of roll-playing what they were
able to "build."
The next step down this road is to just eliminate ability scores and assign
modifiers for different classes, with a system for buying down the negatives
and boosting the neutrals or positives.

    That may have been me, I should resurrect this.

    Making people use standard arrays already greatly limits the SAD
classes. When everything runs off one stat, you don't want a 15 there.

    But here that's better for the Wizard, even if you cut them to very
small amounts of Dex and Con they should start with a 17 (or 19) Int which
is plenty. At least it's not a 20.
    You're also confusing the better clases with the SAD ones. Clerics and
Druids are MAD and awesome, they don't need any help at all to compete with
Wizards in any 3e-style game. Bards and Monks are MAD and not so good.

 - Brb +2 Str, Dex, & Con
 - Brd +2 Dex
 - Clr -2 Dex
 - Drd ------
 - Fgt +4 Str, +2 Con
 - Mnk +4 Str, Dex, & Con
 - Pal +2 Str, +4 Con
 - Rgr +2 Str, +4 Dex
 - Rog +2 Dex
 - Src ------
 - Wiz -2 Str

    As a class mod, these do not stack as bonuses, and should probably be
tied to class tropes like a Monk being unarmoured and so on. Many of those
classes are better "fixed" by giving them better class bonus progressions,
like full BAB for Bards and Monks, all good saves for Fighters, and so on,
but that's an aside.

    That should almost certainly become +1 to /all/ stats. If you're giving
the Wizard +1 Int, the Monk needs +1 to everything to have any chance.

    Fighting classes only? Go for it. Tempting to fold the two together into
a growing class bonus if you stick with one class. Ftr 16 can end up with
+12 Str, +4 Dex, +6 Con. Full casters do not need better mental stats, and
you could just take that bonus away from them.

    16th level middle-aged Wizard with 22 Int fully buffed? Yay! Fighter
still can't fly? Oh dear.

    Elite array with fairly small mods should be fine. Keeps the better
classes down a bit. With more even classes, the NPC array and everyone
getting big bonuses would work better.

    Bigger bonuses feel better when you get them, more of them and less
often seems a good idea.

    If you had stacking bonuses, you could give them for sticking with one
PClass, so pile them on at say 4th, 8th, and 10th. It'd be a nice balancing
mechanism if the designers had it available (and they actually playtested
their stuff properly).

    I've got stuff written down /somewhere/ about this sort of thing. Should
be mostly in a spreadsheet, as I remember generating a few thousand
characters to test the ideas. Hmm.

--
    tussock

On 24/10/2012 9:11 AM, tussock wrote:

Well, would you compensate with a lesser standard array? a 14 or 13 as
the highest stat? I left it up to the campaign (DM in consultation with
players)

You're right; I did confuse that. I suppose this could be done in
combination with various of the milder nerfs to those classes, but
that's a separate discussion

Did you mean to all 3 stats?

Why not CHA?

NOT giving any bonus, beyond the standard array, to a powerful class
makes some sense. A cleric would want to put the 15 in Wis to be able to
get to 19 by the time the 9th level spells show up.

However, ... Since my proposal based the first set of ability adds on
first character level rather than class level, why wouldn't clerics take
their first level in some other class that avoids the penalty? Or would
people want to start their spell progressions immediately and so not
take a 1-level dip? I've heard at least one person say they consider
taking a 1-level dip in Barbarian at first level for the extra hit
points and speed; depends on the campaign I suppose.

I gather you didn't like my "+2 to (choose 2 of Str, Dex, Con)"?

No bonus to primary stat for powerful SAD classes might make sense.

Hmm. Do you mean you're tying them strictly to first class level rather
than first character level? I'm not quite sure how you mean this to
work. If you stack 4 classes, do you get the best plusses for each stat
(rather than stacking)? Ftr 1 / Rgr 1 gets +$ str, +4 Dex, +2 con? or
just the first-character-level Ftr mods?

Hmm. I recall Keith making the same suggestion in a long-ago discussion.

I guess you mean that even with these changes, fighters are behind?

Part of the that suggestion about not giving boosts in prestige classes
was the vague idea that there ought to be more benefits to sticking with
a primary class.

I'd love to see the ideas, albeit not the spreadsheet itself! At least,
not right away.

<snips>

    I like the familiar base, the size of bonuses it needs are fairly small
and you can throw the odd penalty at it. Not a problem.

    Yep. It's interesting to think what I'd give a more balanced set of
classes too, there's more room to throw about mental stat bonuses and
penalties and let the multiclass stuff stack.

    Yep.

    Chickened out, they are casters. They need Dex anyway for bows and AC,
and are a moderately good class. 16 Dex, 15 Cha?

    Every house rule I come up with for 3e gets parsed to see if I can fit a
caster nerf into it. 8]

    Sure, Rog first for the skills, Brb for the speed, Mnk for the naked
defense, Ftr for the AC and various feat combos, .... Simply put, your old-
school Elven Fighter/Mage is one level behind in Wizarding, has a few more
hit points, and is much better with swords: but is *one level behind in
Wizarding*.
    That's awesome. If I could think of a way to trick them into going two
levels down, the monsters would stand up much better. 8]

    Old habits: if I want Dex it's for bows and light armour, so I dip
Ranger for the cheap feats and assorted other goodness. My strait Fighter
builds tend to be low-Dex tanky types, maybe dip something for wand use.

    No mental stat mods of any kind was my final thought. Getting the
caster's numbers under control is handy. I'd like to use some mental
penalties on the grunts, +Cha and Wis for a Paladin, +Wis Monk.
    But negatives just kills the classic multiclass options like F/M, and
bonuses could make the dip compulsary for full casters.

    All of them, overlapping and not stacking, correct. A handy thing for
keeping multiclassing reasonable without needing to care about what came
first or why my Ftr/Rgr doesn't have a Dex bonus when my Rgr/Ftr does.

    Fighters are ... yes. It's complex, because the DM can give the Fighters
a /lot/ to do with a little cooperation from the casters. To some extent
they don't need any bonuses at all if everyone plays along at piling spells
on them and keeping the monsters in reach (at least up to around 15th level
where Pathfinder tops out it's adventures for that very reason).

    But then there's so many things in the MM that are just flat out better
at standing in melee than a Fighter can ever be, or crazy-fast and just
immune to your bow. The high level Fiends, played for keeps, are basically
/impossible/ to kill with a Fighter even if you are all buffed up.
    Unless the DM puts them 20' from an unlocked door and lets you sneak up
on their super-genius ass and cut them down before they can act.

    Oh, sure. I was thinking strait Wizard might be getting some nice
bonuses every 2nd or 4th level anyway, so rather than drop into a PClass
after 6 or 7 levels of Wizard and wait untill 11th, 15th, and 17th level for
any more bonuses, or "worse" grab dip levels in three PClasses, you hang
around with your Wizard.

    Like, if you get into modding the typical stat bonuses from Wishes and
Enhancement bonuses, you can fit more into the core classes aswell. Rather
than a +6 hat, +4 from level, and +5 wishes, a 17th level Wizard could have
had +1 Int /every even level/ (more at higher levels), which the PClasses
get less often.
    I sort of assume that's to be part of any such package.

    I'll have to have a dig around.

--
    tussock

<snip>

    OK, found it. It's in my little "AD&D 3rd edition" project, which never
really got anywhere interesting (other than in understanding better how 3e
changed some of the game's basic odds).

    Using something like the standard array (or dice) and 3e's stat mods,
it'd be about half the size for stat adjustments ... so

Fighter: +2 Str, +1 Con, -1 Int.
-Ranger: +1 Str, +1 Dex.
Paladin: +1 Str, +1 Cha.
---Mage: +2 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Str.
Illusio: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Con.
-Cleric: +2 Wis, +1 Cha, -1 Dex.
--Druid: +1 Wis, +1 Cha.
--Thief: +2 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Wis.
Assassi: +1 Str, +1 Dex, +1 Int, -1 Cha.
---Monk: +1 Dex, +1 Wis.

    I've come to appreciate odd adjustments in 3e anyway, nothing wrong with
gamist application of adjustments. The negative adjustments there are an
attempt to model the 1st edition bit where Str < 6 has to be a Mage and so
on without using those sort of limiting rules, which may not be desirable
for others.

    That stacks with similar small race and age adjustments, like AD&D's.
NPC Dwarves can all have average 16 Con while PCs have only a +1 Con
adjustment, Ogres with 20 Str NPCs only need +2 Str for PCs. It's fine.

    Depends how many rules you want to touch to get this sort of effect, but
switching to +1/-1 types gives you more room to show differences without
forcing everyone into the steriotypes.

    The simplest implimentation of this ramble is to say every character
(after choosing a class) gets +1 to any two stats, and may choose to add +1
and -1 to any two as well, using the above as recommendations.

--
    tussock

On 30/10/2012 3:51 AM, tussock wrote:

Well, yes, but that's another step away from tying ability scores to class.

I suppose the most fanatical form of tying ability scores to class is to
start with 11/11/11/10/10/10 or 13/13/11/10/8/8 (specific 15-point buys
but disallowing any extreme SAD variants like 17/10/8/8/8/8), and then
some *big* mods to stats like fighters at character level 1 getting
+4/+3/+2 to Str, Dex, Con in some chosen order, and enough plusses to
spellcasting classes' primary attributes that they can cast their Nth
level spells at class level 2N-1 given the other progressions. Whatever
numbers get picked should take into account the "+1 to all scores at
character level 4/8/10/..." and also whether there are additional
plusses to a class' scores at other levels, like plusses at every Class
level that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever.

So suppose we take 13/13/11/10/8/8 and extra +1s in appropriate stats at
class levels that are multiples of 5.

Ftr (tank) 0: 13/11/13/8/10/8
            1: 16/13/17/8/10/8
            4: 17/14/18/9/11/9
            5: 18/15/19/9/11/9
            8: 19/16/20/10/12/10
           10: 20/17/21/10/12/10
           12: 21/18/22/11/13/11
(if this looks too good, bear in mind that by Keith's reasoning level 12
is beyond normal human ability).

Mage 0: 8/11/10/13/13/8
      1: 8/11/10/15/13/8
      4: 9/12/11/16/14/9
      5: 9/12/11/17/14/9
      8: 10/13/12/18/15/10
     10: 10/13/12/19/15/10
     12: 11/14/13/20/16/11

Everybody does really, really well for at least one class, and MAD
classes do well at all their relevant stats. Multiclass and prestige
classes do less well because of the multiple-of-5 applying only to class
levels and the big boosts only at first character level.

On 30/10/2012 5:53 PM, David Lamb wrote:

I meant "stat" of course.

tussock wrote on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:51:39 +1300:

Agreed.

--
There walked into the lethal quicksands a very old man in tattered
purple, crowned with withered vine-leaves and gazing ahead as if upon the
golden domes of a fair city where dreams are understood.  That night
something of youth and beauty died in the elder world.  -  H P Lovecraft

    True that. Reading back, I've seen the /specific problem/ I ran into
with all that sort of thing is being unable to support classic multi-class
combinations.
    In particular, the Elven F/M where they all but negate each other.

    I don't want them to stack, that does horrible things. I can add them
and halve it, round down for nothing, but why must you get weaker by taking
a Wizard level? Luckily I can let the player do it so they start with +Str
and +Int no matter how multiclassing is handled, becuase _that works_.

    I can trust players to tie their stats to the optimal arrangement for
their /particular/ character better than I can do it for them with class
mods. Want a high Str+Cha Rog/Ftr/Brd with a full-casting bard prestigue
class to model 1e? Go to it.

    It's the same deal with racial mods. NPC dwarves can be dour and tough
and PC dwarves can have a +/- they can put wherever they want. Players don't
want to follow the archetype? Good for them: Sneezy, Sleepy, and Doc were
Dwarves too.

    Where was I? Right. 3e, start with 11/11/11/10/10/10.

    +2 to any four stats, because you're a PC. = 13/13/13/12/10/10.

    +1 to two stats by class. = 14/14/13/12/10/10.
    +1/-2 at player's option. = 15/14/13/12/10/08.

    LOL, standard array in disguise. 8]

--
    tussock

On 31/10/2012 5:41 AM, tussock wrote:

I like the idea of allowing an optional "+1 here for -2 there" trade.

Cute, but... seems like a lot of work for no gain. I know you're more
creative than that!

I suppose alternatives include a different starting array (maybe one
with some 8s and 9s). Then some people might be inclined to "fix" an 8
or 9 with one of their "+2 to 4 stats" bumps rather than push one stat
extra high.

I'm not sure I mind letting a SAD class push its prime stat slightly
above 15, as long as a MAD one gets something more meaningful to them
like a comparable boost to multiple stats.

    Indeed.

    Oooh, you sly devil you. Two fundamental hurdles arise before putting
work into polishing something like this.

    1st Multiclassing: where you don't want a big bonus locked in by your
first level class choice.
    Can work around that with /small/ class bonuses, never more than +1 per
stat per level, and net +0 or +1 at 1st level. Which suits 3e style
multiclassing because you just add everything from all your classes like you
do for BAB and saves (fix those while you're at it).

    2nd Class flexibility: where there's a wealth of stat arrangements that
work well (if not optimally) on /some/ of the classes. If you push a Rogue's
Dexterity by level automatically, you destroy the Strength-based Rogue
option. Maybe that's fine, make everyone optimise a certain way. But ewwww.
    I'm thinking, if you're still bothering with 3e's build complexity for
characters, leave it flexible, that's the point. But then, your stats aren't
tied to your class at all, for at least half the classes.

    Which leads to ... can I give up trying to balance casters and just have
something interesting? Not with that, I don't think.
    Interesting stats /to me/ are when the Wizard ends up with 16 Con and 14
Int, or the bow oriented Fighter ends up taking the Expertise chain because
he had 15 Int anyway. NB: "organic" rolling is kinda neat like that.

    But that doesn't support what a lot of people want out of complex
character building, and certainly doesn't mesh with a Fighter getting
compulsary "free" bonuses in Strength.

    So I'm left with a set of /tiny/ class bonuses that are mostly flexible
anyway. Which is not really tying stats to class any more, as you noted. So
I'm stuck, doing cheap tricks like the above.

    The sheer power of high stats since 3e is tricky. People want to amp one
up because it's a /very/ powerful trick. Getting to 30 in your prime stat is
basically winning. Something like the impact of finding a +5 sword at 1st
level in AD&D, or an item that gave everything -5 to all saves vs your
spells (on top of every other trick for that).
    They playtested the game with characters who barely reached a 20 at high
levels. The monsters just can't take the extra +5 on the PC's side.

    Take a big ol' nerf stick to the full caster classes, eh, then you can
give them whatever stats you like. God-like int? Who cares, when it's the
same DC! ... I should post my 3e versions of AD&D classes and magic rules
(when I'm awake and can check for math). The casters still kick ass, it just
leaves something for the Fighters to do.

--
    tussock