Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mirikon 11-20-05, 12:54 AM	I'm going to be joining a campaign using fractional saves and BAB. Could someone tell me where I can find the text on how this works?
TLomon 11-20-05, 02:03 AM	It is in Unearthed Arcana. Basically, instead of 0, 1, 2, 2, etc. It goes up each level by 2/3. So, 2/3(=0), 4/3(=1), 6/3(=2), 8/3(=2), etc. It gives more of a balance for those who multiclass.
Jaerom Darkwind 11-20-05, 02:34 AM	Obviously, the fraccional progression changes depending on the type of save or BAB.
ShadowCub 11-20-05, 01:23 PM	I'm going to be joining a campaign using fractional saves and BAB. Could someone tell me where I can find the text on how this works? It's in Unearthed Arcana on page 73. Basically, there are 3 BAB progressions: Good, Average & Poor. Quickest way to check which a particular class is is to check it's BAB at level 3. BAB 3 = +1 per level BAB 2 = +3/4 per level BAB 1 = +1/2 per level Calculate the BAB seperately (retaining fractions) from each of your classes & add them together. That is your current total BAB. (Effectively you drop the fractions at this point.) For saves, there are only Good and Poor saves. Good is 2+1/2 per level. (+2 at 1st level) Poor is 1/3 per level. (+0 at 1st level) Multiple levels in each class by 1/2 or 1/3 as appropriate and add the total. Add an additional +2 if the particular save is "Good" for at least one class. That's your total base save. (Effectively dropping fractions at this point.) In most cases, this will add +1/2 classes to your BAB & one or two saves. However, it will also drop your save by 2 if you have a "good save" from two different classes. In general, I think it's more realistic. I championed the idea when introducing my character to an existing campaign and now the entire party has used it to recalculate their saves. *g*
Gilean 11-20-05, 01:58 PM	Fractional saves and BAB are superior to the normal method. In all ways I have though about, at least.
Aurotuli 11-20-05, 05:22 PM	I've been using fractional saves for all my characters since 3.0 first came out. It wasn't until I read UA that I realized that I was supposed to have been directly adding all those BAB/Save progressions all that time. Adding them in that manner just seems odd. I still use fractional BAB/saves, and I still find it odd that this is not the default rule for multiclassing. It is quite possible that a few of my characters lived or died due to my method (as opposed to the default) as it results in higher poor saves and lower good saves, overall, when multiclassing.
ShadowCub 11-20-05, 05:42 PM	Fractional saves and BAB are superior to the normal method. In all ways I have though about, at least. Fractional BAB will always result in a BAB equal too or greater than that of using the "normal" multiclassing rules. Fractional Saves, however, can result in a lower total save. For example: Rangers have good Fortitude & Reflex saves and a Good BAB. Druids have good Fortitude & Will saves and an Average BAB. Monks have all Good saves & Average BAB. Take for example a Ranger 5/Druid 5/Monk 1. According the the PHB this character's saves are Fort 10/Ref 7/Will 7 with a BAB +8. Using Fractional Saves/BAB this becomes Fort 7-1/2 /Ref 6-2/3 / Will 6-2/3 and BAB +9-1/2. This multiclass character has poorer saves across the board, but an improved BAB. Now add another level of Monk. (Ranger 5/Druid 5/Monk 2) PHB says: Fort 11 / Ref 8 / Will 8 and BAB +9. Fractional says: Fort 8 / Ref 7-1/6 / Will 7-1/6 and BAB +10-1/4 Make sense? :thinks: Fractional Base Bonuses will never hurt BAB, but often help it. Fractional Base Bonuses will hurt a save if 2 or more classes have that particular type as a Good save, and be neutral or help otherwise.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-20-05, 05:51 PM	ShadowCub, your math is wrong. The Fortitude save with Fract. Saves is supposed to be 11, Reflex 6 2/3 and Will 7 2/3.
gbnogkfs 11-20-05, 06:43 PM	even with the fractional saves in UA, you add +2 to the good saves at every "1st" level you take in a class. the results are always better than or equal to the default rules.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-20-05, 08:13 PM	The whole fractional BAB and Saves thing bothers me because it uses the exact same formula as the rest of them, it just leaves the fractions for you to round off. Good BAB = level Avg. BAB = level * 0.75 Bad BAB = level / 2 Good save = Bad BAB +2 Bad save = level / 3 The formulas don't change. What changes is when you round; the default thing to do is round first then add the resulting bonuses. The UA version is to add the fractional bonuses then round the total. It amounts to a +1 or +2 for a handful of multiclass builds.
Aurotuli 11-21-05, 02:21 AM	even with the fractional saves in UA, you add +2 to the good saves at every "1st" level you take in a class.Hmm, then perhaps I wasn't using fractional saves all that time. What I would do is the following: Suppose I have the prior example: Ranger 5 / Druid 5 / Monk 1 (LN, I guess). The Ranger has Good BAB, Good Fort, Good Refl, Poor Will. The Druid has Medium BAB, Good Fort, Poor Refl, Good Will. The Monk has Medium BAB, Good Fort, Good Refl, Good Will. So I would look to the base class bab/save table near the front of the PHB, considering the following: 6 levels of Med BAB [+4] + 5 levels of good BAB [+5] = +9 11 levels of Good Fort [+7] = +7 6 levels of Good Refl [+5] + 5 levels of Poor Refl [+1] = +6 6 levels of Good Will[+5] + 5 levels of Poor Will [+1] = +6 So I would end up with +9 BAB, and saves of +7/+6/+6 That's the method I've always used. It was the method taught to me when I first started playing 3e, and it is (not surprisingly) the method those I have and do play with use. Until UA came out I was never even aware that this was not the default method used, and only then - when I looked over some of the stats in NPC examples (which before I'd always assumed were errors) and considered some of the odder seeming posts I'd seen on the boards did I realize that the method I'd learned and that was commonly used among those I knew and know was not the actual method of computing BAB and saves. I still find the actual method extremely odd and prone to unusual results; two levels in each of several different classes with similar good/poor saves, for instance, results in a high level character with insane good saves and +0 poor saves - an absurdity, really. Yet this is in fact how it is "supposed" to be . . . :thinks: :uh-huh:
gbnogkfs 11-21-05, 02:38 AM	Hmm, then perhaps I wasn't using fractional saves all that time. What I would do is the following: Suppose I have the prior example: Ranger 5 / Druid 5 / Monk 1 (LN, I guess). The Ranger has Good BAB, Good Fort, Good Refl, Poor Will. The Druid has Medium BAB, Good Fort, Poor Refl, Good Will. The Monk has Medium BAB, Good Fort, Good Refl, Good Will. So I would look to the base class bab/save table near the front of the PHB, considering the following: 6 levels of Med BAB [+4] + 5 levels of good BAB [+5] = +9 11 levels of Good Fort [+7] = +7 6 levels of Good Refl [+5] + 5 levels of Poor Refl [+1] = +6 6 levels of Good Will[+5] + 5 levels of Poor Will [+1] = +6 So I would end up with +9 BAB, and saves of +7/+6/+6 That's the method I've always used. It was the method taught to me when I first started playing 3e, and it is (not surprisingly) the method those I have and do play with use. Until UA came out I was never even aware that this was not the default method used, and only then - when I looked over some of the stats in NPC examples (which before I'd always assumed were errors) and considered some of the odder seeming posts I'd seen on the boards did I realize that the method I'd learned and that was commonly used among those I knew and know was not the actual method of computing BAB and saves. I still find the actual method extremely odd and prone to unusual results; two levels in each of several different classes with similar good/poor saves, for instance, results in a high level character with insane good saves and +0 poor saves - an absurdity, really. Yet this is in fact how it is "supposed" to be . . . :thinks: :uh-huh: I don't like the whole matter as well. I like the fractional saves/attacks with the "+2 for good saves only at 1st character level" clause.
spectralphoenix 11-21-05, 03:33 AM	Is the +2 for good saves only once rule really nessecary? Keep in mind that under the existing rules, characters with a lot of classes have amazing saves too. They're punished by the fact that they can't get any higher level abilities and/or they get an XP penalty. That said, I like fractional saves and BAB.
Enaloindir 11-21-05, 03:59 AM	I remember a thread over on Andy Collin's message boards where he thought about making the +2 bonus to a good save a character level 1 feature instead of a class level 1 feature (just like max hp and 4x skill points at 1st level) Enaloindir
starfire311 11-21-05, 09:29 AM	Is the +2 for good saves only once rule really nessecary? Keep in mind that under the existing rules, characters with a lot of classes have amazing saves too. They're punished by the fact that they can't get any higher level abilities and/or they get an XP penalty. That said, I like fractional saves and BAB. I think it is necessary as a trade off of sorts.... Essentially Fractional BAB/Saves lowers you Good saves to increase your Poor Saves and BAB... and a nice little bonus is it makes a lot more sense. Why the ehck would a 1st level barbarian/1st level figther have a better fort save than a 2nd level barbarian or a 2nd level fighter.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-21-05, 11:52 AM	I think it is necessary as a trade off of sorts.... Essentially Fractional BAB/Saves lowers you Good saves to increase your Poor Saves and BAB... and a nice little bonus is it makes a lot more sense. It doesn't lower your good saves. It makes you poor saves better and your good saves insane! Why the ehck would a 1st level barbarian/1st level figther have a better fort save than a 2nd level barbarian or a 2nd level fighter. Because he multiclassed! In exchange he doesn't get some abilities he may have wanted.
ShadowCub 11-21-05, 01:04 PM	even with the fractional saves in UA, you add +2 to the good saves at every "1st" level you take in a class. the results are always better than or equal to the default rules. Unfortunately another member of my gaming group borrowing the UA book last night, so I can't reference it. Can you quote the appropriate passage that permits this as it simply doesn't make sense. :help: The idea behind Fractional BAB/Saves seems to be a smoother, more even progression without penalizing a character for switching classes at a point where the metagame mechanics are rounding off numbers behind the scenes. As such, since a good save is "2 + 1/2 levels" and a poor save is "1/3 levels" the formula appears to be "1/2 good levels + 1/3 poor levels + 2 IF at least one good level". Looked at another way, a Monk has good saves. A rogue has a good Reflex. A fighter has good Fortitude. And a Wizard has good will. Take a 2nd CL character.... Monk 2 is 3's across the board. (1/2 x 2 good levels + 1/3 x no poor levels +2 for having a good level = 1 + 0 + 2 = 3) Monk 1/Fighter 1 would be the same for Fortitude (1 good level from each class). I hate using this word in the context of game mechanics, but logically since it's a good save from both classes, the result should be the same whether the character is Monk 2, Fighter 2, or Monk 1/Fighter 1. Now the Monk 1/Fighter 1 for his Reflex & Will saves would have (1/2 x 1 good level + 1/3 x 1 poor level + 2 for having at least 1 good level = 1/2 + 1/3 + 2 = 2-5/6 is effectively still 2.) The same would repeat for Thief & Wizard changing which save is "Good". Now granted, in the Core Rules, you read the charts for each class and add them together so our theoretical Monk/Fighter has a better Fortitude save than if they were strictly Monk. But it does not make sense that multi-classing, which involves giving up higher level class abilities to get lower level class abilities from an additional class, could generate a result BETTER than the highest level ability. A Monk 20 has +12 saves across the board. No single class in the game can get a higher base save before epic levels. :bow: How about the Barbarian 1/Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Fighter 1/Monk 1/ Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1/Sorcerer 1/Wizard 1. CL 11. :coolcthul A little bit of everything in exchange for not being able to get above 10th level in any single core class. (Granted, this probably involved a few alignment changes and a couple of Atonements, but it is theoretically possible with just core rules.) What are it's saves? By the core rules, Fortitude is +14, Reflex is +8 & Will is +12. We agree on how the Fractional BAB works, but for reference, this would have a BAB of +4. (That's even worse than the Poor progression!) That's one Epic level save, a max non-Epic save, and even Reflex is highter than a straight Monk of the same ECL would have. And I'm sure that using additional base classes from outside the core rules, PrC's, etc. I could build a CL 20 character with all saves of +24 (double the max for our monk) or even higher. Doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem fair. In fact, it seems downright broken. What would Fractional BAB/Saves give us instead? Fort: +6 (1/2 x 7 good levels + 1/3 x 4 poor levels + 2 for at least one good level = 6-5/6) Refl: +4 (1/2 x 4 good levels + 1/3 x 7 poor levels + 2 for at least one good level = 4-1/3) Will: +4 (1/2 x 6 good levels + 1/3 x 5 poor levels + 2 for at least one good leve = 4-2/3) BAB: +8/+3 (1 x 4 good levels + 3/4 x 5 average levels + 1/2 x 2 poor levels = 8-3/4) A good save for a single class at 11th level would be +7, so +6 is slightly worse, but on par given MOST core classes have a good Fortitude save. (And this will go up next level regardless of what class is added.) A poor save for a single class at 11th level ould be +3, so the +4 for Reflex is a bit better. Save for Will. (Reflective of there being more classes with good Will than good Reflex saves, the Will save will go up next level regardless of what class is added. Reflex will not, again regardless of what class is added.) BAB is right on par for a single class at 11th level and average BAB progression. (And not only will go up next level regardless of what class is added, just like an average BAB CL 12 character, but if the next TWO levels are not both poor, at CL 13 the multiclass character will be ahead of a single average BAB class character.) Now THAT seems balanced. THAT seems fair. THAT is the way I read & interpretted it. And while Core may allow the +2 for every class on a multiclass character, so a case can be made to continue to do the same with the UA Fractional rules, that just doesn't seem right. I mean, do you really want to see a 20th level character with 20 different single level classes, and a save of +40, more than 3 times what any single class character could get?
Vestigial_Thumb 11-21-05, 01:10 PM	I have said again and again and again (not only in this thread): Saves add up; A Fighter1/Monk 1 has +5 Fort save and a Monk or Fighter 2 has +3 Fort save. SAVES ADD UP, DAMN IT!! This makes multiclassing a more viable option. If the saves didn't stack (which they do), characters who multiclass would no only not gain higher level class features from the classes they take, but they also get stuck with sucky saves.
ShadowCub 11-21-05, 01:22 PM	This makes multiclassing a more viable option. If the saves didn't stack (which they do), characters who multiclass would no only not gain higher level class features from the classes they take, but they also get stuck with sucky saves. Which Fractional Saves & BAB at least partially addresses by rounding AFTER adding up the contributions from individual clases. A Paladin 3/Fighter 3/Barbarian 3 instead of having saves of 9/1/1 (with many people thinking that +9 is downright broken), would have saves of 6/3/3. (higher total saves, btw) So Fractional Saves takes away a "broken" detail from the Core multiclass rules (adding the +2 multiple times) and instead rewards multiclass characters by improving all saves that don't have a Good save from two different classes. But hey, it's presented as a "House Rule" not even a change to the regular rules, so as a DM you can apply it however you wish. Personally, I think the multiple +2 is broken and will not allow it. YMMV
Vestigial_Thumb 11-21-05, 02:26 PM	No, dude! A Paladin3/Fighter 3/Barbarian 3 (a hard combination to pull off, BTW) would have saves +10.5/+3/+3. Saves stack. They always do. A Barbarian/Fighter multiclass would have a Fort Save bonus of (Barbarian+Fighter Levels/2) +4.
gbnogkfs 11-21-05, 02:57 PM	Unfortunately another member of my gaming group borrowing the UA book last night, so I can't reference it. Can you quote the appropriate passage that permits this as it simply doesn't make sense. :help: As adding all is the standard rule, I may ask you to provide proofs :confused: Now THAT seems balanced. THAT seems fair. THAT is the way I read & interpretted it. Now THAT is the way you have read wrong all this time... UA, page 73: "In this variant, a 5th-level cleric/2nd-level fighter would have Fort +7, Ref +2, Will +5."
ShadowCub 11-21-05, 03:25 PM	UA, page 73: "In this variant, a 5th-level cleric/2nd-level fighter would have Fort +7, Ref +2, Will +5." Thank you. That is the detail I had not seen. Fortitude saves are good for both Cleric & Fighter, Will is good only for Cleric, and Reflex is poor for both. Per Core Rules: Fort +7 (+4+3), Ref +1 (+1+0), Will +4 (+4+0) Example in UA: Fort +7 (7 levels/2 +2 for Cleric + 2 for Fighter = 7.5), Reflex +2 (7/3 = 2-1/3), Will +5 (5/2 + 2/3 + 2 for Cleric = 5-1/6) As I (and others) were reading it: Fort +5 (7 levels/2 + 2 for at least 1 good = 5.5), Reflex +2 (as above), Will +5 (as above) I still suggest that adding the multiple +2's is broken and cries out for serious abuse. And as this is a suggest House Rule (as I recall it being listed in UA), I will continue to rule as I have been (max of one +2 for a good save). *shrugs* I appreciate you pointing out the detail I missed. I just don't happen to agree with it. As all of UA is optional anyway, to each our own.
Jaerom Darkwind 11-21-05, 03:51 PM	No, dude! A Paladin3/Fighter 3/Barbarian 3 (a hard combination to pull off, BTW) would have saves +10.5/+3/+3. Saves stack. They always do. A Barbarian/Fighter multiclass would have a Fort Save bonus of (Barbarian+Fighter Levels/2) +4.No one disputes that under the RAW. However, the system is only balanced if the character only gets the +2 once. The previous poster was therefore assuming that that was the case. I've also been using this system after a fashion since the dawn of 3E. You simply add your levels in classes with a particular save progression, and use that total (so, a monk 3/rogue 3 has 6 levels of good Ref save, netting a +5 bonus).
starfire311 11-22-05, 10:41 AM	It doesn't lower your good saves. It makes you poor saves better and your good saves insane! Actually it lowers your good saves, because you dont add the additional +2 for good saves everytime you multiclass. Using Fractional Saves a Barb 2/Fighter 1 has Fort +3.5 Ref +1 Will +1 Using RAW A Barb 2/Fighter 1 has Fort +5 Ref +0 Will +0 It improves your poor saves but lowers your good saves Because he multiclassed! In exchange he doesn't get some abilities he may have wanted. It really makes no rational sense that a Barb 2/Fighter 1 has better fort save but worse will and reflex saves than a Barb 3 or a fighter 3... it was just easy for them to write it that way. Even the people I know at wizards use Fractional BAB/Saves in their games.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-22-05, 11:53 AM	Actually it lowers your good saves, because you dont add the additional +2 for good saves everytime you multiclass. Can you show me where it says that. If you can I'll fail my save vs. 50 shame damage. And give me a link to where it says so.
starfire311 11-22-05, 02:59 PM	Can you show me where it says that. If you can I'll fail my save vs. 50 shame damage. And give me a link to where it says so. Does it really matter where it says it, that is how everyone plays it. [edit] I am clarifying what I meant everyone plays it that way when doing fractional saves. When not doing fractional saves, I am pretty sure most people play it by RAW, being that you do get the extra +2 from multiclassing. Please don't come into a house rule discussion and stat that it is bad because it isnt RAW.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-22-05, 04:14 PM	Please don't come into a house rule discussion and stat that it is bad because it isnt RAW. What? No... Fractional saves is a good system. I use it. Always have. I love fractional saves, especially because the base saves of classes stack (I just had to push my argument). I'm a big dipper/multiclasser and like playing NPC such as this Rogue1/Shadowbane Inquisitor 9/Blackguard 10. It's saves by my calculations are 13.8/8.8/6.7 (I didn't round to show the fractions). Badass villain BTW.
Jaerom Darkwind 11-22-05, 04:48 PM	The bottom line is, it was obviously an oversite in that section of UA. The whole point of the system was to reduce the base attack bonus and saving throw inequalities inherent in multiclasses. The inequalities were that multiclassing in classes that had the same progressions resulted in either absurdly high saves or ridiculously low saves (or most often both, as with the Fighter/Barbarian). In this context, it is absurd to suggest that the designers intended to fix only half of the problem, especially when the intuitive approach (which most posters thus far have used without realizing that it wasn't what UA said) corrects both problems easily. In short, the two problems are both fixed quite nicely by the approach to the system most posters have advocated. There is no good reason for the initial +2 bonus granted by the higher progression to stack with itself. It only takes us back to square one.
starfire311 11-22-05, 05:34 PM	The bottom line is, it was obviously an oversite in that section of UA. The whole point of the system was to reduce the base attack bonus and saving throw inequalities inherent in multiclasses. The inequalities were that multiclassing in classes that had the same progressions resulted in either absurdly high saves or ridiculously low saves (or most often both, as with the Fighter/Barbarian). In this context, it is absurd to suggest that the designers intended to fix only half of the problem, especially when the intuitive approach (which most posters thus far have used without realizing that it wasn't what UA said) corrects both problems easily. In short, the two problems are both fixed quite nicely by the approach to the system most posters have advocated. There is no good reason for the initial +2 bonus granted by the higher progression to stack with itself. It only takes us back to square one. Exactly, there are 2 problems with the RAW way of handling saves.... some peole seem to ignore the part about getting ridiculously high Good saves, this is easily fixed and has been fixed by most people, by just allowing the +2 from good saves one time, BTW I ahve seen variants on this were you also get the extra +2 from a good save the 1st time you get it from a PrC.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-23-05, 09:49 AM	Base saves stack by RAW. I will stick by it and other people will too. I will round up a posse and kick your asses (If you'll come to Iceland and threaten to kill me).
starfire311 11-23-05, 11:30 AM	Base saves stack by RAW. I will stick by it and other people will too. I will round up a posse and kick your asses (If you'll come to Iceland and threaten to kill me). Who said they didn't? You do realize this is a houserule forum, and a such I certainly hope everyone here is well versed in RAW, because if you are going to change a rule you had better know the ins and outs of it and why it is the way it is.
Gilean 11-23-05, 01:41 PM	ShadowCub, by "superior", I mean "more intuitive, logical, etc.", not "bigger numbers". FYI.
ShadowCub 11-23-05, 01:54 PM	ShadowCub, by "superior", I mean "more intuitive, logical, etc.", not "bigger numbers". FYI.In that case, I withdraw my previous post. :blush:
Gilean 11-23-05, 02:08 PM	No harm, no foul.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-23-05, 04:47 PM	Who said they didn't? You do realize this is a houserule forum, and a such I certainly hope everyone here is well versed in RAW, because if you are going to change a rule you had better know the ins and outs of it and why it is the way it is. I'm talking about the variant rule of fractional save, I am well versed in the RAW. I'm saying that since base saves stack, the +2 bonus also applies. Nowhere does it say otherwise IIRC. And it turns out the posse is kicking other people's asses, so I'm probably not gonna drag them into this dispute... at this time:shifty:
Jaerom Darkwind 11-24-05, 01:35 AM	Of course the +2 stacks under the RAW. All we're saying is that leaving it that way is a terrible idea and it should be changed so that it doesn't stack.
gbnogkfs 11-24-05, 02:20 AM	Does it really matter where it says it, that is how everyone plays it. I had just quoted a few posts before about the stacking rule even for UA Fractional Saves. UA, page 73: "In this variant, a 5th-level cleric/2nd-level fighter would have Fort +7, Ref +2, Will +5." Then, as always, everyone can play as they wish.
Schmendrick 11-24-05, 03:55 AM	Of course the +2 stacks under the RAW. All we're saying is that leaving it that way is a terrible idea and it should be changed so that it doesn't stack. I respect the fact that you're no longer claiming that this is the way UA's fractional saves work, but I disagree with the assertion that this method is "broken." If the +2 "save bump" were only intended for first level characters in the d20 system, then prestige classes would have their own save progressions (with good saves lacking the "save bump") Multiclassing incurs its own penalty, primarily in the form of diluting class abilities. In tactical D&D (which is where things matter when we're talking numbers like this; roleplay is fine but has only minimal influence on balance), specialization is king. You want to get those save DCs high, your sneak attack damage up, and as many synergistic class abilities as possible. Multiclassing hurts that, sometimes significantly so. The save bump isn't the reason you multiclass, it's only a small consequence. Then again, +2 is kind of large. I'd probably support a "+1 for any additional 'good save' classes" rule, granting a Cleric6/Ranger12 saves of Cleric +3, +2, +3 Ranger +6, +6, +4 Bumps +2+1, +0+2, +2+0 For a grand total of +12, +10, +9
Vestigial_Thumb 11-24-05, 10:53 AM	Of course the +2 stacks under the RAW. All we're saying is that leaving it that way is a terrible idea and it should be changed so that it doesn't stack. So I win? Just kidding. I don't think it's a bad idea. It balances out the big multiclassers/dippers out there (including me). Instead of low saves/low-level abilities. He gets high saves/low-level abilities.
starfire311 11-28-05, 09:27 AM	I'm talking about the variant rule of fractional save, I am well versed in the RAW. I'm saying that since base saves stack, the +2 bonus also applies. Nowhere does it say otherwise IIRC. And it turns out the posse is kicking other people's asses, so I'm probably not gonna drag them into this dispute... at this time:shifty: Yes, The UA variant doesnt say anything about removing the additional +2's, but everyone that I have met that actually uses the fractional saves has removed the additional +2's stacking for balance reasons. Clearly Fractional will give you a better BAB and better Poor saves, so the trade off most people go with is lowering the good saves. I have seen 2 different ways people have handled this, 1) remove all stacking or 2) only allow the 1st time in a prestige class to stack.
gbnogkfs 11-28-05, 11:02 PM	UA, page 73: "In this variant, a 5th-level cleric/2nd-level fighter would have Fort +7, Ref +2, Will +5." that's quite amusing :D
Lord Mhoram 11-29-05, 12:40 PM	I saw the fractional saves and BAB not much different than RAW, and didn't see much use for using it in a normal game. The place where it really helps in the getstalt characters, where you are comparing the two; so you don't get the alternating BAB every other level for a" +20 BAB with two bad BAB" thing that I have seen mentioned elsewhere. I go with the UA saying you get the +2 good every time you get a new 1st class level.
Xandore 11-29-05, 01:09 PM	Yes, The UA variant doesnt say anything about removing the additional +2's, but everyone that I have met that actually uses the fractional saves has removed the additional +2's stacking for balance reasons. Clearly Fractional will give you a better BAB and better Poor saves, so the trade off most people go with is lowering the good saves. I have seen 2 different ways people have handled this, 1) remove all stacking or 2) only allow the 1st time in a prestige class to stack. Okay, haven't met me, but I use fractional and keep all the +2s.
Lord Mhoram 11-29-05, 02:26 PM	Okay, haven't met me, but I use fractional and keep all the +2s. Ditto.
Puggins 12-13-05, 05:00 PM	I know this is an old thread, but I want to throw in my suggestion- rather than even dealing with the +2 as a class or character feature, why not eliminate it altogether: All saves start as +0. "good" saves gain +2/3 per level "poor" saves gain +1/3 per level Features: * eliminates the blocky +2 bonus. * Much smoother save progression. * Much easier combination of poor and good saves for multiclassing- all fractions are thirds. * rewards progressing in "good" levels by giving a character that's had 19 levels in a "good" save class a +13 in that save. All but the last point feature are definite positives. The last feature is not enough of a difference to warrant worrying about. Opinions?
Schmendrick 12-14-05, 02:48 AM	* eliminates the blocky +2 bonus. * Much smoother save progression. * Much easier combination of poor and good saves for multiclassing- all fractions are thirds. * rewards progressing in "good" levels by giving a character that's had 19 levels in a "good" save class a +13 in that save. All but the last point feature are definite positives. The last feature is not enough of a difference to warrant worrying about. Opinions? Please allow me to disagree. First of all, the existing save progression is completely smooth for single class characters; the only interruptions in that come from multiclassing, and that's what this thread addresses. The reason for the 1st level "bump" is to enforce a substantive difference between a character's good and poor saves throughout his career: under a 1/3 - 2/3 system, a 1st level character's saves are all identical; wizards are just as easy to charm, fool, or otherwise befuddle as fighters - and are just about as likely to survive poison or perform feats of stamina. With the "bump", a wizard has a good will save simply by virtue of being a wizard. Also, the system is designed so that [good] saves rise at the same rate as DCs. Class-based abilities use "10+half class level" or spell level (which increases by 1 every two class levels); a "naked" character remains just as likely to resist/dodge a spell/effect caused by an equal-leveled "naked" character no matter what level they are. Using a save progression other than 1/2 starts to make things weird. It's a far better solution to houserule something dealing with the "2 point bump", either by removing it, limiting it, or weakening it, than to modify the save progressions.
Puggins 12-14-05, 11:01 AM	Please allow me to disagree. First of all, the existing save progression is completely smooth for single class characters; the only interruptions in that come from multiclassing, and that's what this thread addresses. I think that giving someone a +2 at the start and then raising the benefit at the same speed as a wizard's BAB is not very smooth at all, and the multiclassing part of it becomes horrible. The reason for the 1st level "bump" is to enforce a substantive difference between a character's good and poor saves throughout his career: under a 1/3 - 2/3 system, a 1st level character's saves are all identical; wizards are just as easy to charm, fool, or otherwise befuddle as fighters - and are just about as likely to survive poison or perform feats of stamina. With the "bump", a wizard has a good will save simply by virtue of being a wizard. Well, sure, I can see that, but... (1) A wizard at 1st level has virtually the same ability to hit a creature with a weapon as a fighter, aned exactly the same as a priest, which makes even less sense than similar saving throws, and (2) The differences are really pretty small anyway. By third level a "good" save under this system is +2 while under the current system it's +3, which is really not enough of a difference to worry about. By 8th level the saves are within 1/3 of each other, and after that my version pulls ahead ever so slightly. Also, the system is designed so that [good] saves rise at the same rate as DCs. Class-based abilities use "10+half class level" or spell level (which increases by 1 every two class levels); a "naked" character remains just as likely to resist/dodge a spell/effect caused by an equal-leveled "naked" character no matter what level they are. Using a save progression other than 1/2 starts to make things weird. In theory yes, in practice no. Again the difference is just not enough to worry about- it starts as a 2 point difference, becomes a maximum 1 point difference by 5th level, and actually begins to pull ahead slightly by 12th. The difference is really very slight, and what little elegance you give up by no longer tying it to the DC level you more than make up with interest in simplicity of calculation.
Schmendrick 12-15-05, 05:04 AM	I think that giving someone a +2 at the start and then raising the benefit at the same speed as a wizard's BAB is not very smooth at all, and the multiclassing part of it becomes horrible. Then you're considering level 0 to be an actual level, because the progression is a straight-up linear progression at +1/2 per level. I agree that multiclassing makes the "bump" a little odd. Especially using fractional bonuses, where a Bard1 takes a level of Cleric and suddenly his Will save shoots from 2 to 5. But that's the topic of this thread: the "bump" and multiclassing. It's far easier to deal (and more reasonable, to my eye) with multiclass "bumps" as a special case than to tinker with the existing system. (1) A wizard at 1st level has virtually the same ability to hit a creature with a weapon as a fighter, aned exactly the same as a priest, which makes even less sense than similar saving throws, and I'm not sure that "doesn't make sense". After all, why should a priest be good at combat? You should probably have picked the monk for that particular comparison. (Besides, clerics are probably the worst class to pick for balance guidance anyway.) Anyway, I do rather agree with you, though it's definitely worth noting that in low level combat, a fighter's hit points make a much bigger difference than his BAB (except, perhaps, for the "drawing a weapon as a free action as part of a standard move" rule, which has always felt a little kludgy to me anyway). (2) The differences are really pretty small anyway. By third level a "good" save under this system is +2 while under the current system it's +3, which is really not enough of a difference to worry about. By 8th level the saves are within 1/3 of each other, and after that my version pulls ahead ever so slightly. You're underestimating the effect of a +1 bonus. See below. In theory yes, in practice no. Again the difference is just not enough to worry about- it starts as a 2 point difference, becomes a maximum 1 point difference by 5th level, and actually begins to pull ahead slightly by 12th. The difference is really very slight, and what little elegance you give up by no longer tying it to the DC level you more than make up with interest in simplicity of calculation. In theory, yes. In practice: yes. Because one point higher or lower on a good save is roughly at least a +8% benefit. The benefit only gets more significant with poorer saves (or higher DCs). At 18th level +1 to a poor save is roughly at least 12% increase (and +2 roughly 25%). The least difference a 1 point variation in saves ever causes (barring "only a natural 20" situations) is still a little over 5%, and those situations are pretty rare (and somewhat ridiculous). The numbers above are only "rough" figures because they assume the characters (both offensive and defensive) have +0 ability modifiers. Realistically, casters will have significantly higher modifiers (since they need the high ability to cast the spell to begin with and are very likely to invest in Spell Focus feats), and even targets with poor relevant ability scores will have a few bonuses to their saves. Additionally, some classes will have inherent benefits to different saves due to their other class features: rangers and fighters may both have poor will saves, but rangers are more likely to have a higher wisdom (spells, Spot, and Listen). [edit: added]Assuming a margin of error of +/-5 (net), then the value of +1 to a save could fluctuate from 6% to 14%. The point is, each bonus/additional point to a save becomes more valuable when your chance of succeeding at the save is poor (which is generally the case against an intelligent caster; anybody with a good save vs. a spell is likely only a secondary target). A 2 point difference IS a big deal. Against a "typical" DC at any level you're talking about a roughly 17% increase/decrease of making or failing your save (or a bit more if the characters don't receive a 1st level "bump"; the more dire the circumstances are, the more valuable each +1 becomes). I don't consider the ease of calculation issue to be such a big deal - if you're bothering with fractional at all (and have classes with different save profiles) then you're hardly shying away from fractions anyway. IMO messing around with 2 or 3 sixths is pretty much identical in difficulty to messing around with 1 or 2 thirds. Your arithmetic perspective may vary.
ShadowCub 12-15-05, 02:06 PM	I don't consider the ease of calculation issue to be such a big deal - if you're bothering with fractional at all (and have classes with different save profiles) then you're hardly shying away from fractions anyway. IMO messing around with 2 or 3 sixths is pretty much identical in difficulty to messing around with 1 or 2 thirds. Your arithmetic perspective may vary. While I agree that dealing with 1/6 isn't that big a deal, there is a certain ease and elegance to Puggins suggestion. All saves start as +0. "good" saves gain +2/3 per level "poor" saves gain +1/3 per level That makes the math "Save = (<total class levels> + <total GOOD class levels>)/3" Not that I think elegance of the calculation is justification for such a significant change to the system. Cranted, at many levels (5-10 or so) the difference is small enough to be fairly easily ignored. However, at lower levels, default DC's make traps and such quite deadly. And at higher levels, traps and even spells because less of a hazard to characters. (And if monsters use this system, the party's wizard casting fireball is going to be mightly displeased!)
Puggins 12-15-05, 04:29 PM	Then you're considering level 0 to be an actual level, because the progression is a straight-up linear progression at +1/2 per level. I agree that multiclassing makes the "bump" a little odd. Especially using fractional bonuses, where a Bard1 takes a level of Cleric and suddenly his Will save shoots from 2 to 5. But that's the topic of this thread: the "bump" and multiclassing. It's far easier to deal (and more reasonable, to my eye) with multiclass "bumps" as a special case than to tinker with the existing system. I'm not sure that "doesn't make sense". After all, why should a priest be good at combat? You should probably have picked the monk for that particular comparison. (Besides, clerics are probably the worst class to pick for balance guidance anyway.) Anyway, I do rather agree with you, though it's definitely worth noting that in low level combat, a fighter's hit points make a much bigger difference than his BAB (except, perhaps, for the "drawing a weapon as a free action as part of a standard move" rule, which has always felt a little kludgy to me anyway). Agreed, the fighter will likely have 14+ strength/dexterity and maybe weapon focus, giving him quite the advantage in hitting. But the base attack bonus difference is ludicrously low considering one character spent his upbringing sparring with weaponmasters and one spent it with his nose stuck in spell treatices. Thus, I really don't have that much of a problem with the straight +0 save starting line. You're underestimating the effect of a +1 bonus. See below. In theory, yes. In practice: yes. Because one point higher or lower on a good save is roughly at least a +8% benefit. The benefit only gets more significant with poorer saves (or higher DCs). At 18th level +1 to a poor save is roughly at least 12% increase (and +2 roughly 25%). The least difference a 1 point variation in saves ever causes (barring "only a natural 20" situations) is still a little over 5%, and those situations are pretty rare (and somewhat ridiculous). I'd actually argue that the exact opposite- the +1 bonus matters more in theory than in practice. I completely get your argument- it's one of the reasons why every bonus to your armor class is more important to the one before. But when you get right down to it a +1 means you will succeed in one more save out of twenty attempts against the same DC. In practice, a character isn't likely to face a total of twenty saves for a looooong time- I doubt that in any of my campaigns my players had to face a total of twenty saves before 5th level. At lower levels they just arent that common- of course, I realize this could just be a personal experience thing. So a character that has a +2 over 5 levels will succeed (faulty math, but it's close) in an extra two saving throws over the course of 15 sessions or so. I doubt that any player would really notice that much of a difference. Saving throw frequency accelerates as you get higher in level, but by that time the difference between my system and the "standard" fractional system is one point at most, and very frequently it's the same: # of levels the standard system has a +2 advantage over mine: 3 (1,2,4) # of levels the standard system has a +1 advantage over mine: 6 (3,5,6,7,8,10) # of levels the saves are even in-between systems: 6 (9,11,12,13,14,16) # of levels my system has a +1 advantage over the standard system: 5 (15,17,18,19,20) So after the very first few levels (where, again, very few saves are made), the systems are very, very similar. I don't consider the ease of calculation issue to be such a big deal - if you're bothering with fractional at all (and have classes with different save profiles) then you're hardly shying away from fractions anyway. IMO messing around with 2 or 3 sixths is pretty much identical in difficulty to messing around with 1 or 2 thirds. Your arithmetic perspective may vary. Oh no, I agree, the calculation isn't a big deal at all. The premise for using this system has nothing to do with diffculty of calculation. The current system just offends my sense of elegance. The BAB progression is based on quarters, preventing any wacky fractions. Yet the save system has both halves and thirds, which don't fit together well- at least in my tiny, ordered little mind. Anyway, just something I figured I'd toss out. I might give it a go in my next campaign.