PDA

View Full Version : Sensible BAB and Saves for multiclassing



taltamir
2009-12-17, 03:40 PM
I think the sensible approach to BAB and Saves from multi classing is as follows:

BAB = RoundDown(<sum of full BAB class levels> + 0.75(sum of medium BAB class levels) +0.5(sum of low BAB class levels)). So basically, add up all the babs using fractions and then round down in the end.

And Saves:
1. You get a +2 to base save the first time you take a level that gives it as a high save, you may gain this only once per save type.
(so a wizard will start with +2 will, taking a level of monk will give him +2 fort and ref, but not an additional +2 will)

2. Each <save> = RoundDown(<sum of high <save> classes>/2 + <sum of low <save> classes>/3)

The RoundDown being outside the parenthesis means it happens after you have added all the numbers together...

So, for example, a wizard 1/sorcerer 1/monk3/fighter 2:
BAB: 2 low levels (sorcerer and wizard), 3 medium levels (monk) and 2 high levels (fighter) = RoundDown (2*0.5 + 3*0.75 + 2) = 5

For saves, it has:
Fort: 2 low levels, 5 high levels = RoundDown(2/3 + 5/2) + 2 (bonus from having a high save class) = 5
Reflex: 4 low levels, 3 high levels = RoundDown(4/3 + 3/2) + 2 (bonus from having a high save class) = 4
Will: 5 low levels, 2 high levels = RoundDown(5/3 + 2/2) + 2 (bonus from having a high save class) = 4

If you are single classing, you can use the above calculations and get the same values as printed for your class.

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-17, 03:45 PM
Did you just describe the RAW for fractional BaB and Saves variant?
How does yours differ?

Gralamin
2009-12-17, 03:48 PM
You do know that Fractional BAB and saves exist right?

Save wise, a good save is 2 + 1/2 HD, while a bad save is 1/3 HD. So each "new" good save class adds 2, which isn't in your formula, and so you are punishing people who multiclass a lot, which is already a weak option.

Fort in your example should be floor(2/3+2+3/2+2+2/2) = 7 to maintain consistency.

Grumman
2009-12-17, 03:53 PM
You do know that Fractional BAB and saves exist right?

Save wise, a good save is 2 + 1/2 HD, while a bad save is 1/3 HD. So each "new" good save class adds 2, which isn't in your formula, and so you are punishing people who multiclass a lot, which is already a weak option.

Fort in your example should be floor(2/3+2+3/2+2+2/2) = 7 to maintain consistency.
That is a deliberate change on his part. And I agree with him, the fractional B.A.B. and saves are better, but multiclassing into half a dozen full casting PrCs should not boost your Will save to such obscene levels.

The White Knight
2009-12-17, 04:04 PM
That is a deliberate change on his part. And I agree with him, the fractional B.A.B. and saves are better, but multiclassing into half a dozen full casting PrCs should not boost your Will save to such obscene levels.

This. This is the reason that none of my Wizard's Save-or-X spells will never have a possibility of working -- every member in our party has arbitrarily high saves from taking a few classes each, so the DM's vision of fair save modifiers is completely corrupted. (That, and I think the bad guys have +Yes vs. all Save-or-Suck/Die spells because he thinks that's a "challenge", but I digress).

I already use the OP's exact model of BAB/saves any time I get get the basic math through the dense skulls of my gaming groups.

Which is frustratingly rare...

taltamir
2009-12-17, 04:23 PM
It was indeed a deliberate change. To prevent ridiculously high saves (which results in none of the save based spells working).

As for punishing multi classing... Not exactly, it gives and it takes.
Normally multi classing causes you to either lose or gain BAB and saves depending on the exact amounts of levels you take in each class. Making for odd "breaking points"; where you have to take exactly X levels to glean benefits.

This removes this limitation allowing you to take whatever class you want with consistent results. On the other hand, you lose the ability to abuse the system for arbitrarily boosted saves. So it can sometimes result in better saves, and sometimes in worse saves... but always more sensible saves (and BAB). Overall, I think it gives more benefits for multi classers by removing one method of abuse and mitigating several senseless penalties that multiclassers take.

Pluto
2009-12-17, 04:23 PM
. . . you are punishing people who multiclass a lot, which is already a weak option.

"Punishing"? You're not giving them something straight-classed characters don't have, but the cases where strong saves overlap are not usually the cases where multiclassing needs help.


Incidentally, this is the way my groups have always treated fractional saves.

taltamir
2009-12-17, 05:15 PM
"Punishing"? You're not giving them something straight-classed characters don't have, but the cases where strong saves overlap are not usually the cases where multiclassing needs help.


Incidentally, this is the way my groups have always treated fractional saves.

Well, I titled it sensible for a reason :)
I am certainly not the only sensible person around...

Stegyre
2009-12-17, 05:21 PM
This. This is the reason that none of my Wizard's Save-or-X spells will never have a possibility of working -- every member in our party has arbitrarily high saves from taking a few classes each, so the DM's vision of fair save modifiers is completely corrupted. (That, and I think the bad guys have +Yes vs. all Save-or-Suck/Die spells because he thinks that's a "challenge", but I digress).

I already use the OP's exact model of BAB/saves any time I get get the basic math through the dense skulls of my gaming groups.

Which is frustratingly rare...
This is also how I do it: fractional BAB & Saves, but you only get the +2 save bonus once per save type (fort, ref, will).

FMArthur
2009-12-17, 05:44 PM
Since the first time I was the DM my entire group has always used factional BAB + saves with the 'good save' +2 bonus only once. It just makes sense. I'm glad to see it's more common than I thought.

Person_Man
2009-12-18, 10:02 AM
You could go with a SWSE-ish fix.

Saves are equal to ability bonus (Dex, Con, or Wis) + 1/2 your hit dice + class bonus + feats/misc. The class bonus would be +0 if the Save is weak for that class, or +4 if it is strong for that class. If you multi-class, you can choose which classes' Saves you want to use, but you never add them.

For example, assuming all 10's in every ability score, a Knight (strong Will) 4/Fighter (Strong Fort) 2: would have Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +3 OR Fort +3, Reflex +3, Will +7.

Most classes only have one strong Save, so most multi-class builds would only have one strong Save. If you choose to multi-class into something with 2 Strong Saves (Ranger, Bard, Druid, a few others) then you get 2 Strong Saves. If you take a level of Monk or Favored Soul, you get 3 Strong Saves (and you deserve them).

Overall, this leads to slightly stronger base Saves for all classes (you end up with +4 for Strong Saves at first level, and +14 at 20th level), but very little ability to get very high Saves via multi-class or prestige class abuse.

valadil
2009-12-18, 11:17 AM
I ran this way once. The only difference was that instead of saying the +2 applied once per save, I had it only apply at level 1. Some people take rogue at 1 for skill points, or barbarian at 1 for HP. I figured this would let monk at 1 be an option worth considering.

The players liked it a lot. They're not as powergamey as my other group, so they liked that they could leave a class at any level instead of leaving right after the sweet spot.

taltamir
2009-12-18, 11:43 AM
I ran this way once. The only difference was that instead of saying the +2 applied once per save, I had it only apply at level 1. Some people take rogue at 1 for skill points, or barbarian at 1 for HP. I figured this would let monk at 1 be an option worth considering.

The players liked it a lot. They're not as powergamey as my other group, so they liked that they could leave a class at any level instead of leaving right after the sweet spot.

do you ignore the multiclass penalties then? Monk would be an extremely valid 1 level dip for most classes if there were no multi class penalties...

valadil
2009-12-18, 12:11 PM
do you ignore the multiclass penalties then? Monk would be an extremely valid 1 level dip for most classes if there were no multi class penalties...

TBH, I can't remember. We might have used some other rules for multiclassing.

Nobody went monk, so it didn't matter anyway. I was half expecting someone to go monk/rogue to try and flurry their sneak attacks. That seemed like a valid enough idea at the time.

Riffington
2009-12-18, 01:18 PM
Which is frustratingly rare...

I also like this method. But if it's too complicated for your group, there's a much simpler option that (IMO) works better than WotC's method:
Pick one class that has at least 1/3 of your total class levels. Your saves are the saves of that class (but at your total character level). Alternatively, pick one Good save progression and two poor; give one of the Poor progressions +2.

Separately, I never really knew why you couldn't pick your good save to begin with. Sure, Hermione might have a good Will save, but Harry and Ron don't. Harry has a good Fort save and Ron has a good Reflex save.

Draz74
2009-12-18, 03:17 PM
Harry has a good Fort save

So, you're saying throwing off the Imperius Curse (i.e. Dominate Person) is a Fortitude save? :smallconfused:

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-18, 04:21 PM
do you ignore the multiclass penalties then? Monk would be an extremely valid 1 level dip for most classes if there were no multi class penalties...

Most people don't even know what multiclass penalties are. Most people do ignore them. Hence why dipping is involved in every optimized build (except wizard 20 :smallbiggrin:)

It's understandable tho cuz who wants to calculate experience penalties when you just make a 20th level character.

Tavar
2009-12-18, 04:28 PM
Most people don't even know what multiclass penalties are. Most people do ignore them. Hence why dipping is involved in every optimized build (except wizard 20 :smallbiggrin:)


Actually, since PRC's don't count towards mutliclass penalties, most optimized builds don't care. Plus, the best 20 level class is probably Druid.

Eldariel
2009-12-18, 06:12 PM
"Punishing"? You're not giving them something straight-classed characters don't have, but the cases where strong saves overlap are not usually the cases where multiclassing needs help.


Incidentally, this is the way my groups have always treated fractional saves.

This is actually in line with the original appearance of Fractionals (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060303a); UA writers just ****ed it up.

Ormur
2009-12-18, 09:36 PM
Wow, I never realized the RAW for fractional bonuses gave you +2 for every new class with a good save, that's ridiculous. I've used fractional bonuses since I started making multiclass characters and never imagine it would work like that, I even wondered if it applied if you didn't take the good save at level one (I've mostly used it for gestalt).

RS14
2009-12-18, 09:48 PM
I too have always done it this way.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:10 AM
I also like this method. But if it's too complicated for your group, there's a much simpler option that (IMO) works better than WotC's method:
Pick one class that has at least 1/3 of your total class levels. Your saves are the saves of that class (but at your total character level). Alternatively, pick one Good save progression and two poor; give one of the Poor progressions +2.

Separately, I never really knew why you couldn't pick your good save to begin with. Sure, Hermione might have a good Will save, but Harry and Ron don't. Harry has a good Fort save and Ron has a good Reflex save.

and some fighters are not dumb as a sack of bricks and actually has an education (knowledge? skillpoints?)...
But WOTC opposes the notion of non pigeon holing people.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:12 AM
Actually, since PRC's don't count towards mutliclass penalties, most optimized builds don't care. Plus, the best 20 level class is probably Druid.

I know, but the discussion was dipping non PrC core classes, those do have XP penalties.

Also, most DMs ignore the "must be a member in good standing of a unique in game organization which offers that class".

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:15 AM
TBH, I can't remember. We might have used some other rules for multiclassing.

Nobody went monk, so it didn't matter anyway. I was half expecting someone to go monk/rogue to try and flurry their sneak attacks. That seemed like a valid enough idea at the time.

its basically, "if you have more than 1 core class, excluding your favored class, those classes must be within 1 level of each other or you take a huge % penalty to all XP gain"

example:
A human has "favored class: your highest level class"
A human monk 1/wizard 5/ranger 2 has wizard as his favored class, that means he has more than 1 "other" classes, being monk and ranger. Those must be within 1 level of each other or incur penalties.

This is a problem if you play a "wrong" race... for example, an elf whose favored class is wizard, will take penalties for being a monk 1/Fighter 3 or higher. Because, ignoring his wizard levels (none), he has more than 1 class, monk and fighter. And those are more than 1 level apart (2 levels actually).

The thing is... PrCs are also excluded, anyone can have as many PrC classes as they want without penalties. As long as they have joined the organization in game, keep in good standing with it, and met the prerequisites, and the DM chose to allow the PrC... the PrC was supposed to be a DM tool which the DM had to specifcally create per world with severe limitations, the DM finds a nice PRC, creates the organization, and then hints at players that they can join it...

Of course, that went to hell in a hand basket rather quickly.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-19, 12:16 AM
I know, but the discussion was dipping non PrC core classes, those do have XP penalties.First off, nothing provides XP penalties. no build combination, ever. Those rules do not exist.

And what he said was that Optimized builds don't care. Basically any class in the top 3 tiers doesn't dip. it goes 1-20, with several PrCs. The only exception I can think of is ToB.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:20 AM
First off, nothing provides XP penalties. no build combination, ever. Those rules do not exist.

And what he said was that Optimized builds don't care. Basically any class in the top 3 tiers doesn't dip. it goes 1-20, with several PrCs. The only exception I can think of is ToB.

you don't dip because those rules exist...

Example dipper:
The dipstick:
Fighter2/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1
HD: 3d10 + 1d12 + 1d8
BAB: 5
Fort +9
Ref +0
Will +0

2 fighter feats, Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day, Fast movement, rage 1/day, 1st favored enemy, Track, wild empathy

Vs fighter5:
HD: 5d10
BAB: 5
fort +4
ref +1
will +1

3 fighter feats.

The problem the first listed one has, is that it takes obscene XP penalties and would be lower level.
EDIT: I had a brain fart here... by the own rules I outlined the first does not take an XP penalty, the classes are still 1 level apart... oops. but it will eventually if it doesn't keep them 1 level apart.

Kantolin
2009-12-19, 12:24 AM
This is a problem if you play a "wrong" race...

Ignoring the idea of the 'wrong' race for a given character, there are actually a variety of situations where a favored class with a class you have still helps you.

For example, hrm. Monk 1 / Wizard 2 / Paladin 5. Here, having wizard as your favorite class hurts you since monk and paladin are still far apart.

You can also be in a situation where favored class 'any' hurts you. Fighter 1 / Wizard 3 / Cleric 3. Here, you want favored class Fighter, and having favored class 'any' means you suffer an experience penalty.

When you keep going like this, your favorite class becomes 'please dip me', which also seems contradictory to the goal. :P

And it murders creativity in a lot of cases. I wanna be a half-orc eldritch knight, and I don't want to do it with a barbarian. :P

Edit: Finally, prestige classes don't (and couldn't rationally) count. Thus, this permits you to still go with many of the insanely complicated I-have-twelve-classes builds you see around, while smacking the half-orc fighter/wizard.

It in fact encourages you to go Fighter 1 / Ranger 1 / Paladin 2 / Prestige! and do shenanigans of that variety. :P

sofawall
2009-12-19, 12:27 AM
First off, nothing provides XP penalties. no build combination, ever. Those rules do not exist.

And what he said was that Optimized builds don't care. Basically any class in the top 3 tiers doesn't dip. it goes 1-20, with several PrCs. The only exception I can think of is ToB.

Fighter or Barbarian dips are quite common, actually.


The problem the first listed one has, is that it takes obscene XP penalties and would be lower level.

Someone hasn't read the multiclassing rules.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:29 AM
When you keep going like this, your favorite class becomes 'please dip me', which also seems contradictory to the goal. :P
An interesting an amusing conclusion, oh so true btw.

I guess it is favored in that, not all elves are wizards... but an elf can take wizard 1 while being something else without penalties (of course, wizard is not exactly dip friendly since magic is highly level dependent)

Tavar
2009-12-19, 12:29 AM
Fighter2/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1


Unless my eyes deceive me, all of those classes are no more than 1 level apart, thus, no xp penalty.

Kantolin
2009-12-19, 12:30 AM
Example dipper:
The dipstick:
Fighter2/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1
HD: 3d10 + 1d12 + 1d8
BAB: 5
Fort +9
Ref +0
Will +0

2 fighter feats, Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day, Fast movement, rage 1/day, 1st favored enemy, Track, wild empathy

Vs fighter5:
HD: 5d10
BAB: 5
fort +4
ref +1
will +1

3 fighter feats.

Actually, neither of those two characters has an experience penalty. The dipstick's Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian levels are all at the same place, so you're fine. :P

Now, if you went Fighter3/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1 you'd get an XP penalty. But with XP penalty rules in place, you're more encouraged to take a prestige class.

(Or hexblade or swashbuckler or complete warrior samurai or cleric or druid or something else if you're sitll aiming to be a dip monkey :P )

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:30 AM
Someone hasn't read the multiclassing rules.

Actually, I read them, I quoted them, and then I managed to misrepresent them :)

Doh, your levels have to be at least 1 level apart... so yes the first one I built will not be penalized YET, it will be penalized later on if it does not keep those within 1 level of each other.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-19, 12:31 AM
you don't dip because those rules exist...Look at the top 3 tiers: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, Psionic Warrior-Can't multiclass without losing spellcasting/manifesting, therefore doesn't
Bard-Either goes IC-optimization(no multiclassing), Sublime Chord(1 PrC), or for 4 levels before going ToB
Wildshape Variant Ranger-Takes MoMF at earliest opportunity, followed by certain other PrCs that advance Wildshape
Binder-not sure
Factotum-8 levels either followed by 12 more or by the chameleon PrC
Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade-only case where multiclassing is a viable optionSo, what optimized builds multiclass? Those that are ToB. Other than that, few, if any, optimized builds multiclass.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:32 AM
Actually, neither of those two characters has an experience penalty. The dipstick's Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian levels are all at the same place, so you're fine. :P

Now, if you went Fighter3/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1 you'd get an XP penalty. But with XP penalty rules in place, you're more encouraged to take a prestige class.

(Or hexblade or swashbuckler or complete warrior samurai or cleric or druid or something else if you're sitll aiming to be a dip monkey :P )

yes... I am thinking of using something like that sometime soon... 1 or 2 levels in a bunch of martial classes and then PrCs forever :)
I wanna see what I can build... A race with a favored class of a martial character will eventually let me focus on that one exclusively if I ever go into the obscene high amount of levels.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:33 AM
Look at the top 3 tiers: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite, Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, Psionic Warrior-Can't multiclass without losing spellcasting/manifesting, therefore doesn't
Bard-Either goes IC-optimization(no multiclassing), Sublime Chord(1 PrC), or for 4 levels before going ToB
Wildshape Variant Ranger-Takes MoMF at earliest opportunity, followed by certain other PrCs that advance Wildshape
Binder-not sure
Factotum-8 levels either followed by 12 more or by the chameleon PrC
Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade-only case where multiclassing is a viable optionSo, what optimized builds multiclass? Those that are ToB. Other than that, few, if any, optimized builds multiclass.

I mentioned that magic is different. It makes sense to dip your martial classes, you don't lose anything much. (and they could use the powerup), dipping casters means committing the cardinal sin of losing caster progression.

tyckspoon
2009-12-19, 12:34 AM
you don't dip because those rules exist...

Example dipper:
The dipstick:
Fighter2/paladin1/ranger1/barbarian1
HD: 3d10 + 1d12 + 1d8
BAB: 5
Fort +9
Ref +0
Will +0

2 fighter feats, Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day, Fast movement, rage 1/day, 1st favored enemy, Track, wild empathy

Vs fighter5:
HD: 5d10
BAB: 5
fort +4
ref +1
will +1

3 fighter feats.

The problem the first listed one has, is that it takes obscene XP penalties and would be lower level.

Except.. all of its classes are within one level of each other, and thus it takes no XP penalties at all. Neither does a build that goes X 2/Y 3/PrCs, which is a fairly common setup for gishes. You remove XP penalties for multiclassing because the most powerful multiclass options don't trigger them at all, and so they just hurt the people whose builds need all the help they can get already (like Monk/Wizard/Fighter. You'd have to be fairly insane to look at that and think it's a good idea.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-19, 12:36 AM
I mentioned that magic is different. It makes sense to dip your martial classes, you don't lose anything much. (and they could use the powerup), dipping casters means committing the cardinal sin of losing caster progression.Hence...no optimized build is multiclassing.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:38 AM
Except.. all of its classes are within one level of each other, and thus it takes no XP penalties at all. Neither does a build that goes X 2/Y 3/PrCs, which is a fairly common setup for gishes. You remove XP penalties for multiclassing because the most powerful multiclass options don't trigger them at all, and so they just hurt the people whose builds need all the help they can get already (like Monk/Wizard/Fighter. You'd have to be fairly insane to look at that and think it's a good idea.)

I never said it was a good idea, I said it was raw... and yes I have noticed that I made a mistake there, I noticed it right away and a lot of people mentioned it already. I stated the rules and then I states something that contradicted the rules as I stated them one post prior. Sorry, my bad.

But the "spirit" of multiclass penalties was to prevent abuse... which they completely fail to do. The prevent interesting characters while lending themselves a lot to abuse.

The partial saves and BAB I outlined in the first post prevents abuse while increasing the viability of interesting non uber min/maxed characters. It gives a multiclasser equal viability to a single class, rather then making it less or more viable depending on "break points"...
Speaking of, it will help if in addition to the sensible BAB and saves you do away with favored classes and multi classing penalties all together.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:39 AM
Hence...no optimized build is multiclassing.

you can optimize a martial class...
A munchiken wouldn't use one, but someone wanting to play a certain type of character will be willing to play one, and might want to optimize it so it doesn't lag as much behind the casters.
Optimizing a martial character means sacrificing less power for role playing reasons than playing a non optimized martial character

sofawall
2009-12-19, 12:47 AM
...sacrificing... power for role playing reasons...

Sorry, stopped reading.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 12:50 AM
Sorry, stopped reading.

can you elaborate?
I have seen plenty of people say that sometimes you need to sacrifice power for role playing. I am not certain what my stance is on it... but rather then assuming that everyone who isn't playing a full caster is ignorant/less intelligent, I surmise they must be sacrificing power for the sake of role playing. Not everyone is trying to be the most powerful character on the table.

sofawall
2009-12-19, 12:57 AM
can you elaborate?

Stormwind Fallacy. I tend to skip over anything related to it.

To be honest, I don't know what you were trying to say at the end there, it made zero sense to me, but it seemed to have something to do with a relationship between optimization and roleplaying, so I just skipped it.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 01:00 AM
Stormwind Fallacy. I tend to skip over anything related to it.

To be honest, I don't know what you were trying to say at the end there, it made zero sense to me, but it seemed to have something to do with a relationship between optimization and roleplaying, so I just skipped it.

1. care to elaborate some more? what is stormwind fallacy? why do you have a problem with it?

2. Did you miss the "less" part? Player X decides he wants a non magical beat-stick. Instead of the most powerful character he can build he comes up with a character idea, CharOp says he is automatically weaker than any full caster, by a whole lot. By optimizing heavily he can lower said gap.

3. I think the problem is, by your own admission you stopped reading and then just invented a possible thing for me to have said, because you refused to read it, because it had a few words in close proximity that ticked you off without even being a complete sentence.

Ryuuk
2009-12-19, 01:02 AM
It isn't quite Stormwind. He's saying that if you want to play a certain martial concept, it should be possible to do so and still be effective.

The Stormwind Fallacy is the false belief that you either min-max or you role play. That you can't do both.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 01:04 AM
It isn't quite Stormwind. He's saying that if you want to play a certain martial concept, it should be possible to do so and still be effective.
Yes, that is what I said.


The Stormwind Fallacy is the false belief that you either min-max or you role play. That you can't do both.
That is about the opposite of what I said.

sofawall
2009-12-19, 01:08 AM
1. care to elaborate some more? what is stormwind fallacy? why do you have a problem with it?

2. Did you miss the "less" part? Player X decides he wants a non magical beat-stick. Instead of the most powerful character he can build he comes up with a character idea, CharOp says he is automatically weaker than any full caster, by a whole lot. By optimizing heavily he can lower said gap.

Optimizing is playing the most powerful character that you can under set specifications. If you want to play a warrior-mage, that will not be as powerful as a straight wizard, but it can be optimized. If you want to play a martial character, it will not be as powerful as a straight wizard, but it can be optimized.

It's when people say that because your character is optimized, you must have sacrificed roleplaying ability that the Stormwind Fallacy occurs.
If you sacrifice something for no reason that for "Roleplaying", that is the Stormwind Fallacy.

Basically, you are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy if you believe that there is an inherent connection between the power of your character and the roleplaying abilities you have as that character.

Someone gave a great analogy. Sure, your +1 longsword was an ancestral relic from your grandfather. You want to use it if possible. While adventuring, however, you find a +1 Holy Outsider-Bane Longsword. You confront a demon. continuing to use your grandfather's weapon is almost certainly bad roleplaying.

Think of your adventuring party as a S.W.A.T. team. Picking weaker equipment/spells/feats is likely to get them killed. Who could possibly justify Skill focus (Basketmaking) over Empower Spell if every day that poor choice has a serious chance of causing the demise of himself and the party?


EDIT: I see two posts where Taltamir says that you sacrifice power for roleplaying reasons when playing a martial character over an arcanist.

Also, I knew a ninja was coming, but the longer type-up seemed to fit the occasion.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 01:25 AM
Optimizing is playing the most powerful character that you can under set specifications. If you want to play a warrior-mage, that will not be as powerful as a straight wizard, but it can be optimized. If you want to play a martial character, it will not be as powerful as a straight wizard, but it can be optimized.
But it is not as powerful as a wizard.


It's when people say that because your character is optimized, you must have sacrificed roleplaying ability that the Stormwind Fallacy occurs.
Yes, that is a fallacy, optimizing does not in any way shape or form require you to sacrifice roleplaying


If you sacrifice something for no reason that for "Roleplaying", that is the Stormwind Fallacy.
No, unless stormwind fallacy combines two completely different things. Optimizing does not exclude roleplaying is not the same as saying roleplaying requires optimizing.


Basically, you are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy if you believe that there is an inherent connection between the power of your character and the roleplaying abilities you have as that character.
Roleplaying and roleplaying ABILITY are two different things. There is absolutely no inherant connect between your ability to roleplay and your power. However, you CAN choose to create a character whose role involve it being weak. This is especially pertinent if you are a DM designing an NPC. Designing an intentionally weak NPC due to the plot calling for him being weak.
But you are referring to PC only naturally, in which case still you can knowingly hold back...
Actually, playing a wizard means you are constantly holding back or the world will break; literally.


Someone gave a great analogy. Sure, your +1 longsword was an ancestral relic from your grandfather. You want to use it if possible. While adventuring, however, you find a +1 Holy Outsider-Bane Longsword. You confront a demon. continuing to use your grandfather's weapon is almost certainly bad roleplaying.
It is neither good nor bad roleplaying, it is roleplaying a sentimental idiot who will get himself killed by not using proper equipment. Such a role is appropriate for an NPC, but not for a PC because PCs are supposed to be successful heroes, not idiots that get themselves killed.

However, the assumption that ditching your ancestral sub par sword for the awesome sword of uberness is somehow "superior" role playing is flawed.


Think of your adventuring party as a S.W.A.T. team. Picking weaker equipment/spells/feats is likely to get them killed. Who could possibly justify Skill focus (Basketmaking) over Empower Spell if every day that poor choice has a serious chance of causing the demise of himself and the party?
If you are trying to play a "hillarious" game a la. disk world, you can justify it as being funny. If you are trying to role play a party of weaklings who often run from encounters, that also works.. Not everyone is playing a swat team every single game... However, I would suggest that you just take a good feat and assume that you know whatever mundane task you wanted to know without wasting feats on it. Aka, your class represents your combat and ONLY your combat abilities.



EDIT: I see two posts where Taltamir says that you sacrifice power for roleplaying reasons when playing a martial character over an arcanist.
Well... I see two possibilities:
1. Everyone who plays a martial character, ever, is less intelligent then me/ignorant.
2. Some people want to play a martial character because they want to "role play" a fighter, or a guard, or something, and not a wizard.
And they do so despite it being weaker.

I am not arrogant enough to think it is #1, hence I conclude #2 it is... and in no way shape or form does me making such a statement fall into the "stormwind fallacy".

There is also another aspect here.. I feel like playing a beat stick. Is it bad roleplaying of me to play a beat stick because I know wizards are better? The answer is, no. However, because I don't believe that optmizing = bad roleplaying. I will optimize the heck out of my beatstick so he can do more to keep up with the wizard.

sofawall
2009-12-19, 01:37 AM
Your last paragraph saved you, taltamir. The concept of 'Fun' also has no inherent connection to either Optimization or Roleplaying. It is this third concept that causes people to play Fighters. Why do you want to roleplay a Fighter? Because it is fun. Why do you want to be a Wizard? because they are powerful. Why do you want to be powerful? Because it is fun.

Yes, you can make a weak team. If you try to make a weak team, optimizing it is making it as weak as possible. If you try to make a team of a certain power level, optimizing is getting as close to that level as possible.

The problem is, while you clearly don't believe that there is a connection between Optimization and roleplaying, your posts both imply and outright state it.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 01:40 AM
The problem is, while you clearly don't believe that there is a connection between Optimization and roleplaying, your posts both imply and outright state it.

which ones and how so?

sofawall
2009-12-19, 01:55 AM
I am not certain what my stance is on it... but rather then assuming that everyone who isn't playing a full caster is ignorant/less intelligent, I surmise they must be sacrificing power for the sake of role playing. Not everyone is trying to be the most powerful character on the table.



Optimizing a martial character means sacrificing less power for role playing reasons than playing a non optimized martial character


These both say it fairly outright. You probably meant something more like:



Optimizing a martial character means sacrificing less power when you don't want to be an arcanist than playing a non optimized martial character

but you see, that has to do with fun, for the most part, not roleplay. You could roleplay a wizard as a nonmagical warrior if you wanted to.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 02:06 AM
These both say it fairly outright
No they don't.

The first case even explicitly states that it is not MY belief that there is a connection between roleplaying and optimizing, but that some people do chose to do so. I did not condone the practice, but it exists. They could very well be wrong about it.

The second one deals with the inherant disparity between arcanists and martial characters. And suggests heavy charop can close it, allowing you to have fun as a martial character. The implied statement is that heavily optimizing your martial character does not detract from your ability to roleplay, which is the exact opposite of the stormwind fallacy.


You probably meant something more like:

Optimizing a martial character means sacrificing less power when you don't want to be an arcanist than playing a non optimized martial character
Its not what I "meant", it's what I explicitly said in both cases. My grammar and word selection is concise and correct and implies the exact same meaning in both cases.


but you see, that has to do with fun, for the most part, not roleplay. You could roleplay a wizard as a nonmagical warrior if you wanted to.

It will take extreme amounts of refluff and wouldn't work right... "i use my metamartial (metamagic) empowered sword spark (lightening bold)"... ugh, I can't even finish... and its still not a martial character.
Or do you mean in conversations only? because there is very little difference between the classes in conversation, in conversation they are just people; not classes or levels.

sofawall
2009-12-19, 02:09 AM
Roleplay is not related to your character sheet.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 02:51 AM
Roleplay is not related to your character sheet.

roleplaying has distinct relationship to your character sheet.
For example:
Player A has a character sheet that says he is a human, 20 years old, a fighter, has 10gp, and has a str of 8.
Player B has a character sheet that says he is a dragon, 2000 years old, a wizard, has 10,000,000 gp, and has a str of 50.

If they both claim to be a 2000 year old dragon, offer to pay a million gold for something, claim to be able to cast a spell, or claim to be able to bench press a boulder... well... one is lying and one isn't. And having lied will affect how the story unfolds. For example, when asked to actually pay the million GP, or breath fire, or take your dragon form for a nice afternoon flight with the dragon princess... one will not be able to deliver.

Or say, when your team mates say "ok, cast a buff on me" (since you introduced your fighter as a wizard), well... not gonna work.

sofawall
2009-12-19, 03:15 AM
For example, when asked to actually pay the million GP,
Left it in my other pants.

or breath fire,
Your local ale is so strong, I don't think I'd like to risk breathing fire. Might hit you by accident.

or take your dragon form for a nice afternoon flight with the dragon princess...
Sorry, I'm taken. The wife wouldn't want to see me with a pretty little thing like you.

Or say, when your team mates say "ok, cast a buff on me" (since you introduced your fighter as a wizard), well... not gonna work.
Sorry, out of spells. Yes, I know I didn't cast any yet. Look, I never said I was a good wizard! (Think Rincewind)

Let me revise that comment. You ability to roleplay an particular archetype in a particular situation has little to no relation with your character sheet, as long as your character sheet properly represents the character himself.

Example: You can say you trained with the greataxe for 50 years without WF: Greataxe. You can have 9th level spells and use them often without ever being a archetypal wizard.

Frog Dragon
2009-12-19, 05:55 AM
Fractional Saves are annoying to calculate.
Fractional BAB is not though, so I use that.

For saves, you get the normal saves in your first class, but when you multiclass, you only get +1 in the first (essentially -1 to the progression) level of your new class. In a bad save, i've upped the progression into one level higher. You basically start the progression from lvl 2. So if you're a Rogue 4/Factotum 2, your base will save would be +2.

Grumman
2009-12-19, 06:05 AM
Fractional Saves are annoying to calculate.
You just need to work in 1/6ths instead of 1/2s and 1/3s. You get 2 points for a poor save level and 3 points for a good save level. Add them all up and divide by 6, and add the +2 bonus/es to get your base save.

Pigkappa
2009-12-19, 06:12 AM
Roleplay is not related to your character sheet.

Yes, I mean, we all know that a Human Bard with 8 Int, 10 Wis and 18 Cha can be roleplayed just as a Dwarf Cleric with 12 Int, 17 Wis, 8 Cha. Really.

Tokiko Mima
2009-12-19, 06:14 AM
My quick and dirty method for calculating saves on a multiclass character without fractions is to total the levels of classes with Good Fort/Reflex/Will saves, and total the levels with Bad Fort/Reflex/Will saves. Calculate what bonus would be given for each, and add them.

For BAB I calculate how many class levels had +1, how many had +3/4, and how many had +1/2. Then add the bonuses they would have gotten. It's what the original multiclassing rule should have been, I think. :smallsmile:

Riffington
2009-12-19, 06:38 AM
When you keep going like this, your favorite class becomes 'please dip me', which also seems contradictory to the goal. :P


Only somewhat. The idea is "hey, orcs love barbarism, even their clerics are often dipped barbarian; if you looked at a dwarvish cleric he'd be more likely to have a couple levels of fighter". I can't see why not let a player change it, but it's a fair idea if they wanted to make certain race/class combos more common.



Roleplay is not related to your character sheet.

There is certainly a relation. Say you want to be an Orcish Barbarian/sorcerer. You could, if you want to roleplay one particular character, say you're a sorcerer who casts expeditious retreat or something all the time to keep up with his tribe and be a barbarian along with being a sorcerer. Or you could take that level of barbarian and actually have that rage and speed inside you. Both are valid characters, but they roleplay differently; pick the one you enjoy playing.


So, you're saying throwing off the Imperius Curse (i.e. Dominate Person) is a Fortitude save? :smallconfused:

To be fair, Harry has a bonus to all saves from his mom.
But he's consistently better at Fort saves than Will ones. And certainly you can't tell me Ron is so good with the Will...

lesser_minion
2009-12-19, 06:44 AM
Basically, you are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy if you believe that there is an inherent connection between the power of your character and the roleplaying abilities you have as that character.


Not necessarily. The Stormwind Fallacy is the belief that there is always a conflict between powergaming and roleplaying.

You seem to have taken it as some kind of holy commandment when all it says is that roleplaying and optimisation aren't mutually exclusive.

If you don't respect the game world, your character probably will be slightly more powerful than someone who does, simply because respecting the game world adds another constraint to your build. It's actually one of the reasons (besides the DM and the other players) that cheese doesn't work in play.

There are places where choosing a bad option is bad roleplaying, but there are also places where choosing a good option is bad roleplaying. Your wisdom 6 wizard isn't always going to take the best option every time because he is barely sane. Even less so in combat, where he barely even knows what is going on.

Not every part of the rules makes much sense from an IC perspective, and if you're optimising your character at those points - when the other choices should actually be as effective and aren't because of some rules quirk - then you might not be roleplaying as well as you could be.

Fluff is mutable, but that doesn't mean that it can be completely independent of what it says on your character sheet. One represents your character in the world, the other helps in that by representing your character in the model of that world. They should be consistent.

taltamir
2009-12-19, 11:32 AM
Left it in my other pants.

Your local ale is so strong, I don't think I'd like to risk breathing fire. Might hit you by accident.

Sorry, I'm taken. The wife wouldn't want to see me with a pretty little thing like you.

Sorry, out of spells. Yes, I know I didn't cast any yet. Look, I never said I was a good wizard! (Think Rincewind)

Thanks for proving me right. Those are all great responses, and I never said you cannot have a good response... I just said your actions are going to have to be different on several occasions. While roleplaying a dragon without being one is possible and hilarious; you are not actually a dragon... so you CAN'T actually breath fire, etc.

Speaking of, I gotta play me a character like that :)