Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bard-of-all-trades 10-18-06, 09:56 PM	Howdy folks. I found a thread that talks about a gestalt character and saving throws (i.e. Gestalt Saves Question). In this thread, several people mention just using fractional stats as being simpler and easier. They also mention not allowing the +2 to saves allowed at first level. I have the following questions: 1) How is fractional stats easier? 2) How do you not allow the +2 or +2 1/2 for saves at first level? Any explanation would be appreciated. Thanks.
Kirech 10-19-06, 01:17 AM	Since this seems to be a response to my statement on that thread, let me explain myself a little better. First, I didn't intend to say that fractional BAB/Saves was easier than just using the tables. What I meant was that calculating fractional BAB was easier than calculating fractional saves, since multiples of 3/4 and multiples of 1/2 add together easier than multiples of 1/2 and multiples of 1/3. I also think that using fractional BAB is a good idea because otherwise you end up with multiclass swordsage/ninja/monks with lower attack bonus than a straight wizard. It's necessary for gestalt because otherwise you end up with dumb tricks I also suggested a house rule for saves that evens out multi/single class base saves. With the rule, what I referred to as "starting bonuses" would only apply to each save once. With it, a fighter1/ranger1 (non-gestalt) would have F=3, same as fighter 2, R=2(+5/6), a cross between a good and bad save, and W=(2/3), as expected for a bad save at level 2. This means that fighter5 and fighter2/ranger3 would have the same good fort save. It doesn't make logical sense that multiclassing almost always trades BAB for ridiculously high saves. That said, my statements were at best tangental to what was being discussed. Thank you for moving this to a new thread.
JaronK 10-19-06, 01:24 AM	It's pretty straightforward. When you want to figure out the fort save of your character, simply check which of your classes give good fort saves and which give bad ones. For each level in which you've got at least one class giving a good fort save, add 1/2. For each level in which both classes have poor fort saves, add 1/3. Add 2 for each time you take the first level of a class that gives a good fort save. Round down. Done. Repeat for reflex and will. Thus, a Fighter 6/Dervish 4//Rogue 10 would have 6 levels with a good fort save (from fighter) and 4 without (neither dervish nor rogue give good fort saves), so that's 6 * 1/2 + 4 * 1/3 + 2= 6, rounding down. Some people play that you can't get the save bonus for first level, so just don't add 2 for any level other than level 1. This is easier because if you don't do it, your math becomes impossible to check... a Wizard 20//Sorcerer 19/Fighter 1 can have a BAB of 10 or 20, depending on when you take the levels, and that problem goes away with fractionals. JaronK
Malkieri 10-19-06, 12:44 PM	I love people overcomplicating things and saying stuff that makes no sense. This is easier because if you don't do it, your math becomes impossible to check... a Wizard 20//Sorcerer 19/Fighter 1 can have a BAB of 10 or 20, depending on when you take the levels, and that problem goes away with fractionals. I cannot possibly see ANY scenario where such a character would have a +20 base attack, ever. Why? Because the book says to use the "best progression" and that's all a person needs to remember, that and pg. 22 of the PHB. It's this simple, no matter how many classes or gestalt levels you have, just know your progression. For saves, do not add the +2 bonus for choosing a new class because choosing a new class may change your progression but it's not like adding a new class with multi-classing. For Example: A 12 level gestalt, 6 Fighter then 6 Rogue/6 Cleric then 6 Wizard (just for complications sake) For Base attack, the first 6 levels are split between the Fighter and the Cleric, the Fighter has a "good" base attack progression, which is better than the cleric's "average" so, 6 of your 12 levels are a "good" progression = +6 Next, you have 6 levels of an "average" progression with the rogue, and a "poor" progressoin with the wizard, so you have 6 levels of "average" progression = +4 Total Base attack= +10 Saves seem to be more difficult, but are not. For the first 6 levels you have a "good" fortitude and will, and a "poor" reflex, for 6 levels that comes to +5 Fort, +2 Reflex, +5 Will For the next 6 levels you have a "poor" fortititude, and "good" Reflex and Will. Now, for 6 levels of poor fort you get a +2, and for 6 levels of good reflex a +5, BUT for will, you just continue the good progression you already have, 6 more levels of good progression in Will gives you a total Will save of +8 +7/+7/+8 Total Saves. As a gestalt, all you have to do is look down the columns on PHB pg 22, and add the numbers together real quick (or just follow the column down if the progression doesn't change, that's why you don't get an additional +2 for changing classes, because you can't go from a good progression, to a good progression, you just keep using good) Here's an easier example: 10th level gestalt 10 Fighter/5 cleric and 5 bard Base Attack: 10 levels of good progression because of fighter =+10 Saves: 10 levels of Good Fortitude Save, 10 levels of Good Reflex, and 10 levels of Good Will= +7/+7/+7 (you don't get an additional +2 to Will for switching to Bard from Cleric, because you merely keep the "Good" Progression you already have) As long winded as the post is, eventually, all it takes is glancing at the "Good", "Average", "Poor" Columns in PHB to figure any gestalt's base attack and saves in seconds.
Bard-of-all-trades 10-19-06, 09:50 PM	That is a great explanation Malkieri, thanks. I was doing way too much math. Of course, I understood just using the numbers from the class charts, but, in conjunction with multiple classes and PrC's from the gestalt PC's in the CO forums, it was making my calculator melt trying to figure out saves and BAB. And then when Kirech and others mentioned using fractional stats being easier in the linked post, I didn't see the ease of that. I get it now. :)
Kirech 10-19-06, 11:15 PM	Yeah, I think Malkieri's way is the simplest and most sensible way to go about it (not by the book, but better). I still don't think you understood, Bard, that I wasn't saying that fractional saves are easier than non-fractional. They aren't. EDIT: I was speaking for too many people, apparently.
Kintara 10-22-06, 09:36 PM	The only hiccup I can see with Malkieri's explanation is that it's only covering instances where the class changes occur in sync on both "sides" (well, at least as far as the example). What if the level changes are staggered? For instance, on one "side" you have a Fighter 5/Bard 2/Ranger 7/Cleric 6, and the other is Rogue 3/Barbarian 6/Wizard 4/Sorcerer 7? It's a dumb and overcomplicated build, but explains my point. The class changes occur at different points on each "side." That's why it can be easier to look at each level individually and add the bonuses fractionally as you go. If you're going straight through with a class on each "side," you can save yourself having to worry about it entirely, though, which is my suggestion. It's not a hard and fast thing with me, but I think gestalts are much cleaner and easier to work with that way. There are enough base classes that I'm not particularly bothered with the restraints of just gestalting two of them. Edit: And I can make this whole thing more complicated by having it so the character doesn't take each class all at once, but instead switches around all the time. For instance, the above character doesn't need to take each level of Fighter in order before switching to another class. He could take Fighter at character level 1, 4, 7, 13 and 19. Again, this is taking my point to a ridiculous extreme, but the principle behind the problem is sound enough. Sometimes players take a level in something, take something else, and then come back and take more levels. My solution for tallying a build like that is just to look at the changes between the individual levels (which is more consistent if you use fractions). Except for first level (which has the extra +2 to Fort), a Fighter gets +1 BAB, +1/2 Fort, +1/3 Ref, and +1/3 Will each level.
Bard-of-all-trades 10-23-06, 01:09 AM	OK, I understand your point, but if I understand Malkieri correctly, it still works. You said "one "side" you have a Fighter 5/Bard 2/Ranger 7/Cleric 6, and the other is Rogue 3/Barbarian 6/Wizard 4/Sorcerer 7". Let's look at it a bit differently and follow the logic without numbers involved. Side 1 Side 2 BAB Fort Ref Will Fighter Rogue G G G P Fighter Rogue G G G P Fighter Rogue G G G P Fighter Barbarian G G P P Fighter Barbarian G G P P Bard Barbarian G G G G Bard Barbarian G G G G Ranger Barbarian G G G P Ranger Barbarian G G G P Ranger Wizard G G G G Ranger Wizard G G G G Ranger Wizard G G G G Ranger Wizard G G G G Ranger Sorcerer G G G G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G Cleric Sorcerer M G P G G = Good M = Medium P = Poor Now just look at BAB and see that it has 14 levels of full and 6 levels of medium progression, for a +18. The Fort comes in at a +12 since it has good progression the whole way and we're not including the +2 for any level 1 beyond first level. Ref would be 12 levels at good and 8 levels of poor for +10 overall. And I had to use fractions to figure out the Will, but it comes out to 8 5/6 for a grand total of +8 when its all said and done. So, at first, look at the progression and follow it as a single class would or if that fails replace progression with the appropriate fractions without the +2 for any level 1 beyond first level. That is kind of easy. Now I can figure stats for gestalt characters, Especially the ones made on the Character Optimization forums. :D
Kintara 10-23-06, 02:58 AM	Well, honestly, I think it's somewhat moot, as you still have to look at each level to determine what type of bonus it is. At that level of scrutiny, there really isn't that much of a difference between coming up with a table for the total of a type of bonus and then referencing the progression table for two or three numbers and then adding them, and just adding the numbers up as you go (adding the fractions at each level).
Bard-of-all-trades 10-23-06, 11:54 AM	I wouldn't say that I was particularly scrutinizing it. I was just laying it out in a different format to look at the changes involved. I agree whole-heartedly about "going back to classes" Kintara. That is exactly what I was refering to when I mentioned characters from the Optimization forums. Ones like: 1. Feat Rogue 1 // Paladin 1 --- Able learner, Sacred vow, [Feat] 2. Bard 1 // Fighter 1 --- Power attack 3. Cobra strike Monk 1 // Ranger 1 --- Improved unarmed strike, Dodge, Track, Devoted performer 4. Cobra strike Monk 2 // Paladin 2 --- Mobility 5. Human paragon 1 // Paladin 3 6. Human paragon 2 // Paladin 4 --- Snowflake wardance, Vow of obedience 7. Human paragon 3 // Arcane duelist 1 8. Bard 2 // Arcane duelist 2 9. Bard 3 // Arcane duelist 3 --- Ascetic mage 10. Bard 4 // Fighter 2 --- ? 11. Bard 5 // Sublime chord 1 12. Bard 6 // Sublime chord 2 --- Arcane strike 13. Bard 7 // Harper paragon 1 14. Bard 8 // Harper paragon 2 15. Bard 9 // Harper paragon 3 --- Divine might 16. Bard 10 // Harper paragon 4 17. Bard 11 // Harper paragon 5 18. Bard 12 // Harper paragon 6 --- Favored power attack 20. Bard 14 // Harper paragon 7 19. Bard 13 // Harper paragon 8 I'm sure there are more complicated examples, but since we both agree, there is no need to go on. Thanks everyone for your contributions. If anyone has anything that would make this even simpler or easier, I'd love to hear it. Good gaming folks.
Tralfas 10-24-06, 02:16 PM	I don't see why people seem to be against giving the additional +2 bonus if a player takes a new class that has a good save when he already had a good save from a previous class. In a non-gestalt build I have 4 levels of Ranger, and then decide to switch to add 1 level of Fighter. I'd get both the +2 Fort save bonus from my first level of Ranger AND also get the +2 Fort save bonus when I take my first level of fighter ending up with a +8 Fort save bonus. So the character is getting the 'first level' +2 bonus twice. Take the same to a gestalt build as follows: Ranger / Cleric Ranger / Cleric Ranger / Cleric Ranger / Cleric Fighter / Cleric Why would it not also get the same +8 base fort save? Isn't a gestalt character/build supposed to be 'better/more' than a normal build? Sure, a player could abuse things and jump around and take many classes and get better save bonuses. But in doing so aren't they giving up the real benefits of getting the higher level abilities and spells that you gain from sticking with a small set of classes to higher levels? And finally as the GM if you see someone doing that you always can say NO.
Tralfas 10-24-06, 07:07 PM	Correction the above. It would be a +6 fort save. +4 for the ranger levels (4th level), and then +2 for the fighter (1 of them). For some reason I had 4th level for both stuck in my head when I did the simple math.
Bard-of-all-trades 10-25-06, 12:05 AM	I don't see why people seem to be against giving the additional +2 bonus if a player takes a new class that has a good save when he already had a good save from a previous class. ... Sure, a player could abuse things and jump around and take many classes and get better save bonuses. But in doing so aren't they giving up the real benefits of getting the higher level abilities and spells that you gain from sticking with a small set of classes to higher levels? And finally as the GM if you see someone doing that you always can say NO. I was a little fuzzy on why not to allow the +2 from being first level after level-1 which is why I asked. And you are correct. Some folks dip into levels for certain abilities or class features and in the process gain considerably in the saving throw department. The easy part for the DM is if these characters are generated at higher levels and they can just say no, but the hard part would be in a campaign where a player builds the same character with good role-playing and game interaction.