PDA

View Full Version : Do high ability scores help weaker classes?



Eorran
2008-05-05, 01:41 PM
I've read some of the discussions of class power levels on these forum boards, and i've noticed a discrepancy between the discussions and my own experience.
DISCLAIMER: I am not saying "all classes are balanced". Generally, the points made about Wizards / Druids / Clerics etc. are well-made, with logical arguments and the mechanics to back them up. Which is what interests me: I have played a number of games with the same small group over the years. None of us really puts a lot of work into character optimizing, but we would rather win than lose. Still, we don't generally find certain classes really outshine others.
Monk is one exception, I've tried one and he really wasn't able to contribute at all. Also, above level 12 or so Wizards tend to be the most versatile character. The Cleric and Druid actually tend to lag behind the Fighter or Barbarian, mostly because by the time the buffs are done, so is the encounter. (I don't allow Natural Spell or DMM Persist)
We also tend to play characters with high ability scores. 18,16,15,14,12 would be a pretty common set of scores, for example.
So, in the experience of other gamers, do higher ability scores help lower power classes more? Or is this more likely due to lower-level play (we typically run levels 4-10 most frequently), lack of optimization on the part of casters, or just an anomaly?

bosssmiley
2008-05-05, 02:13 PM
Higher ability scores help weaker classed characters to a minor extent at low levels, but are not enough to off-set the effect of substandard class features. Heck! You get more substantial bumps in your stats from a single casting of {animal's}{quality} (~2nd~ level spells) than from 12 levels-worth of stat adds.

Let's face it: by the time the Wizard is throwing around wall of stone and disintegrate, the Druid is setting packs of dinosaurs on you before going bear and eating your face, and the Cleric is hulking out with divine power and calling in favours via planar ally a couple of times a day, a possible +1 or +2 to hit, -to AC, or to HP/lvl from perkier stats makes almost exactly no difference at all to gameplay. You get to suck with bigger numbers is all.

The difference is one of kind, rather than one of degree. Some characters get to actually play the game at high levels; others hobble along playing like you would expect a (non-limelight stealing) cohort to. Using "Tome of Battle", or the homebrew non-caster classes from "Dungeonomicon" & "Races of War", are my preferred fixes. GM pity on under-performing classes always feels like what it is, however you dress it up.

Saph
2008-05-05, 02:16 PM
The simple answer is "yes".

Firstly, one of the reasons that weak classes are weak is because they are usually dependent on multiple ability scores - compare how many ability scores a Monk depends on compared to how many a Druid depends on. So if you give classes high ability scores across the board, or very high point buy totals, the MAD classes will, relatively, benefit more.

Secondly, at low levels, very high ability scores overshadow your class features. The higher your Con, the less relevant the size of your HD; the higher your Strength, the less relevant your melee class abilities. If you're playing with 25 point buy, then at 1st-level the Druid's animal companion is almost as good as the party fighter. If you're playing with 40 point buy, that animal companion doesn't look so impressive.

The more powerful classes also benefit from high ability scores, but relatively, they benefit slightly less, and for classes that use only one or two ability scores, having high scores in the others is more for fun than for power, allowing them to play around with things they can't usually do (like going into melee combat as a Wizard).

- Saph

Keld Denar
2008-05-05, 02:21 PM
They do help to a point. For the most part, casters only really need 2 stats, primary casting stat and con. Othe classes need high str or dex for damage, higher con for not dying, and typcially a secondary atribute that has to be at least 13-14 or higher, such as cha/wis for a paladin or int for a trip fighter. A straight wizard with all 18s in all stats wouldn't really benefit hugely from having a high cha, wis, or str, except as a buffer against things that damage those stats. A wizard gish type character would benefit from str, but still not much from cha or wis, and moderate-low str is easily compensated for with polymorph or crafted enhancement gear. A Monk with straight 18s would be less painful, but still not optimal to the level that even a well built fighter or barb with a 2handed sword would would be with the same stats, simply due to the lack of focus that class has...

I guess that all depends on the DM as well. One DM I know will let you pick as much as you want for point buy...but he's gonna use that point buy for everything you fight as well, so Caviat Emptor applies.

sonofzeal
2008-05-05, 02:22 PM
A lot of what makes many of the worst classes (Monk, Samurai, Ninja) so bad is MAD. The best classes only rely on a few stats, while the worst are spread out all over the board. Higher ability scores, then, are a huge advantage for these classes. A CW Samurai who can afford a high Charisma without sacrificing on Str/Dex/Con ends up being pretty respectable, and a Monk with 16's and 18's across the board is actually pretty solid. Conversly, the Wizard gets next to nothing out of his other stats as long as he has Int , Con, and to some extent Dex.

That said, casters still rule, but it does even the playing field somewhat.

Eldariel
2008-05-05, 02:42 PM
Depends on the class itself. A Barbarian isn't notably better with all his mental stats maxed than he is with them all at 8; just more versatile skillwise. A Paladin, on the other hand, gets much more out of all his class features when he plays with straight 18s as Paladin really doesn't have dump stats at all. Same applies to Monk, but Monk's failings are far deeper in the game structure than simple numbers; Monk cannot combine his class abilities effectively. Monk has two trademark features; insane speed and Flurry of Blows. The catch is that if he uses his insane speed, he can't use his Flurry of Blows. If he uses his Flurry of Blows, he can't use his insane speed. Also, due to his medium BAB, he's barely on par with a normal Warrior (the NPC class) even with Flurry.

Here's a quick rundown on the PHB classes, from lowest number of ability dependancy to the highest (bracketed skills are the important ones):
Druid (Wis, Con, Int**, Dex*)
Barbarian (Str, Con, Wis**, Dex*)
Wizard (Int, Con, Dex)
Sorcerer (Cha, Con, Dex)
Fighter (Str/Dex***, Con, Int**, Wis**)
Rogue (Dex, Con, Int, Cha**)
Cleric (Wis, Con, Cha, Str**)
Bard (Cha, Int, Con, Dex**)
Monk (Dex, Wis, Con, Str, Int**)
Ranger (Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int**)
Paladin (Cha, Con, Str, Wis, Int, Dex**)

*: Denotes that the attribute is primarily relevant early on - Druids stop needing physical stats with Wildshape and Barbarian just gives up on AC after a while.
**: Denotes that the attribute isn't strictly necessary, but rather "nice to have"
***: Fighters can be either Dex or Str-based. Now, this is somewhat true for other melee too, but Fighter lends itself better to this than most others. One can generally be dumped, or at the very most stuck at 13 for feats.


The point of that list is to rationalize, which classes benefit the most from maxing a bunch of stats. Paladins obviously love it since they get to max all their awesome skills, they get to deal damage, they get to cast spells well, they get to take all the whoop out of their abilities, they get a lot of HP and they can wear lighter armor and use ranged weapons.

Druid, on the other hand, just gains a bit for the first 5 levels before Wildshape. Barbarian likewise performs merely marginally better, save for the possible uses of Intimidate, which are handy and better with high Cha.

Fighter increases his versatility and feat selection, but focused Fighters have little to gain from additional stats. Rogue certainly utilize all extras due to their nature as skill monkeys (the higher the base scores, the better), but wouldn't really miss those points if they had to live with natural points.

Bard starts to look a lot better when they make good combatants, skillmonkeys AND casters as they're supposed to be; they probably stand to gain the most from this bunch after Paladins and Rangers. Speaking of Rangers, they really love high stats as both their combat styles tend to like having high both physicals and their casting and skillmonkey roles kinda assume high Ints and Dex. Charisma determines their Wild Empathy, but that's it. Monks I already covered.


So basically, yes, 3 weakish core classes (Ranger, Paladin, Bard) get a huge boost with high stats, while out of the big 3, Cleric stands to gain the most after level 5 (Druids enjoy the kickass stats early on and anyone with high Str is a fine Fighter on level 1). It's not enough to save the Monk and it only expands the options for Fighter and Barbarian, so you need more for them.

Your bannings also impact things a bit; Natural Spell is a godsent for Druids and without it, they tend to want their physicals too. DMM: Persist doesn't really matter that much (have them dispelled and they'll cry), but banning DMM in general is good conduct. More importantly though, I'd ban Divine Power which effectively makes Clerics (even Cloistered ones) a full BAB class. So basically, you nullify Druids quite a bit and Clerics probably just don't know how to make the most out of their buffs (or play the instinctive healer-role), while Wizards may be perfectly happy shooting Fireballs, which kinda evens the playfield. And yes, lower levels make the classes more balanced. Not balanced, mind you, but more balanced.


Verdict: It's a combination of all the factors you presented. And good that way.

Telonius
2008-05-05, 02:47 PM
I'll echo Saph here. High ability scores help MAD classes more than they help SAD classes.

I'll also say that, by flat-out banning Natural Spell and DMM Persist, you have removed two of the most common balance-breaking aspects of D&D. There's still lots of cheese to be had, but those two go a long way of evening the field. Low-level play helps, too. Wizard is still only "Very Useful" instead of "Ridiculously Overpowered" in the lower levels.

HeroicSociopath
2008-05-05, 02:52 PM
High scores don't help weaker classes, think about it.

A fighter always wants a high stat. It might be strength, it might be dexterity, but he needs something to be a good fighter.

A cleric, just needs a good wisdom score... Oh sure, he may not turn undead so good and can't carry alot of treasure, but that's not his job. He's the cleric. He's the band-aid. That's what defines him.

28 Point buy is harder on fighters then clerics, because at it's core, fighters suck.

The only thing that can help weak classes is cheating. Alot of gamers I've talked to hate that idea, but let's face it... when someone is blowing up an entire room with a fireball, who the **** cares that the other player took several feats that he did not have the state requirements to meet?


Cheating should be defined as what is game breaking, not just what isn't in the written rules. It amazes me how it's always the lawful stupid players who hate paladins. Self-loathing much? :smallannoyed:

Kurald Galain
2008-05-05, 03:18 PM
Yes, they do help.

This is because a cleric or druid with 16 wis and low other stats is only marginally less effective than a cleric or druid with 22 wis and high other stats (assuming they use their 4th level attribute boosts to be able to cast 7th-9th level spells in time).

Whereas a rogue with 16, well, whatever and low other stats is going to be a lot less effective than a rogue with 22 dex and high other stats.

Simply put, the full casters can compensate. The others, much less so.

JaxGaret
2008-05-05, 03:27 PM
Eldariel's post pretty much covers everything I would want to say.

Another thing to think about doing if you truly want to affect balance is to actually assign different PB allowances for each base class. For an example, in core: Clerics, Druids and Wizards get 28 PB, Sorcerers get 32 PB, and everyone else gets 36 PB.

That would be a bit more balanced. Not balanced, mind you, but closer to it. I think that for there to be something much closer to balance, the PB amounts would need to be wildly disparate, and also modified according to optimization level.

Chronos
2008-05-05, 04:46 PM
Paladin (Cha, Con, Str, Wis, Int, Dex**)I'm not sure what dependence on Int you're seeing for paladins. Skill points, maybe? But while the paladin doesn't have very many skill points, he also doesn't have all that many good skills available to him. Ride, certainly, but other than that... Diplomacy, maybe? That's a human with 8 int, or anyone else with 10.

Frosty
2008-05-05, 04:52 PM
Knowledge Religion as well. Most Paladin players I know would insist on that for flavor. Maybe Jump. Maybe Spot.

Aquillion
2008-05-05, 05:21 PM
Clerics only really need charisma if they're using divine metamagic and don't have nightsticks available (with nightsticks as a cheap alternative, what's the point of spending stat points on it?)

Rogues also benefit from Wisdom, since several of their skills are based on it. They don't necessarily need a high score, and a difference of +1 to their modifier won't be a huge deal, but they usually can't afford to totally dump it. Same for any other class with a decent skill list.

What makes you think clerics don't benefit from dex? It helps a CoDzilla cleric using Divine Power just as much as it helps anyone else in melee (at least, up to the point that their heavy armor allows, but with mithril armor that's enough to make a difference.)

Frosty
2008-05-05, 05:32 PM
Clerics only really need charisma if they're using divine metamagic and don't have nightsticks available (with nightsticks as a cheap alternative, what's the point of spending stat points on it?)

Rogues also benefit from Wisdom, since several of their skills are based on it. They don't necessarily need a high score, and a difference of +1 to their modifier won't be a huge deal, but they usually can't afford to totally dump it. Same for any other class with a decent skill list.

What makes you think clerics don't benefit from dex? It helps a CoDzilla cleric using Divine Power just as much as it helps anyone else in melee (at least, up to the point that their heavy armor allows, but with mithril armor that's enough to make a difference.)

I think the Sage says that you can only benefit from one Nightstick a day.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-05-05, 05:36 PM
I think the Sage says that you can only benefit from one Nightstick a day.

I think the Sage is pulling that out of his butt because he knows what that poorly designed item is actually capable of.

And not that he claims it gives an untyped bonus to turn attempts, it doesn't though it grants a feat that explicitly stacks with itself.

Talya
2008-05-05, 05:48 PM
The simple answer is "yes".

Firstly, one of the reasons that weak classes are weak is because they are usually dependent on multiple ability scores - compare how many ability scores a Monk depends on compared to how many a Druid depends on. So if you give classes high ability scores across the board, or very high point buy totals, the MAD classes will, relatively, benefit more.

Secondly, at low levels, very high ability scores overshadow your class features. The higher your Con, the less relevant the size of your HD; the higher your Strength, the less relevant your melee class abilities. If you're playing with 25 point buy, then at 1st-level the Druid's animal companion is almost as good as the party fighter. If you're playing with 40 point buy, that animal companion doesn't look so impressive.

The more powerful classes also benefit from high ability scores, but relatively, they benefit slightly less, and for classes that use only one or two ability scores, having high scores in the others is more for fun than for power, allowing them to play around with things they can't usually do (like going into melee combat as a Wizard).

- Saph

This, completely.

It generally won't entirely bridge the gap between classes, but in general, high point buys help out classes with MAD far more than SAD.

For example: A fighter generally needs two ability scores to do his job: Strength, and Constitution. On a 25 point buy, that fighter can have 16 str, 13 dex, 14 con, 10 int, 10 wis, 8 cha. The poor monk, meanwhile, needs strength, dexterity, constitution, and wisdom. On that same 25 point buy the best he can do is 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 9 int, 14 wis, 8 cha.

Now boost the point buy to 60(!).

Fighter becomes 18 str, 16 dex, 18 con, 16 int, 14 wis, 10 cha. Yeah, suddenly he's got more skills, more dextrous (wasted by his armor), and a higher will save...but those traits merely allow him to better do things that are NOT his job. The monk becomes 18 str, 16 dex, 18 con, 10 int, 18 wis, 8 cha. Suddenly the monk has closed the gap, and even the lowly monk can almost equal the fighter in combat. (Now, admitedly, those aren't very high aspirations, and it's still just almost.) See, the fighter has nowhere of use to actually put his extra ability points, so starts becoming a skill monkey or an archer in addition to what he did before. The monk, on the other hand, can now almost do what he was designed to do, whereas before, it wasn't even close.

Eldariel
2008-05-05, 06:32 PM
I'm not sure what dependence on Int you're seeing for paladins. Skill points, maybe? But while the paladin doesn't have very many skill points, he also doesn't have all that many good skills available to him. Ride, certainly, but other than that... Diplomacy, maybe? That's a human with 8 int, or anyone else with 10.

My bad. I'm not sure what I was thinking of there. I had a distinct memory, Paladins had a friggin' awesome skill list and should pick enough to act as a monkey. Oh well, I guess you do get Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Concentration, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Religion) and Knowledge (Royalty). That's all still only Int 12 Human though. That said, you may want some crossclass Spots and Listens and all that. But yea, scratch that, "nice to have", not "must".

Kizara
2008-05-05, 06:57 PM
In my games, we play something that could be compared to the 60 point buy suggested by Tayla.

Why do I do this?

A few reasons:

For one, I like heros to be heros. Not Luke Skywalker style (farmboy destined for important role) but Rand Al'Thor (born with impressively powerful abilities, and a heroic destiny).

For another, it allows you alot more versitility in character concepts. Want to have a Roy-style fighter, with good mental abilities, as well as physical stats? Roy has at least 16, 10, 16, 16, 14, 14, and concievably higher. Try doing that on 32pt buy, not to mention that you want an 18 Strength and Consitution.

For a third, it helps MAD classes like Monks, Paladins, Hexblades, Duskblades and the like. This has already been discussed in greater detail. Unfortunately, it also REALLY helps clerics. My current cleric, had 18, 10, 18, 15, 18, 18 at level 1. That's high even by our standards, but it really made my character powerful. If you gave those stats to a fighter, it would be nice, but he would get much less milage out of them.

TheCountAlucard
2008-05-05, 07:33 PM
This reminds me of when I was helping a friend build a character for my game. He wanted a melee combatant, and I was somewhat troubled by his lack of luck; he had failed to roll above a 14 for any single ability score.

We ended up having him be a Shifter Barbarian with a few Shifter feats. Now, if he rages and shifts at the same time, his ability scores jump to two 18s and a 20. I hate to admit it, but it makes a significant difference in his effectiveness...