Fractional BAB and Saves

[nedz]

What are the pros and cons of this optional rule ?

[Krazzman]

Pro:
helps multiclassing or Prestigeclassing Characters to stay at a relative normal BaB for their progression.

Con:
Your DM is annoyed by the math or fears that this would make multiclass chars stronger?

[eggynack]

I think it's a generally pro having system. It makes the two easier to calculate, and it removes those awkward situations in which mass dipping leads to low BAB and staggered saves. Taking a level of cleric and a level of monk shouldn't give you a lower BAB than a guy with two levels of wizard. It just incentivizes weird things. Because of this, and because the normal save benefits from dipping are actually boosted by this system, fractional BAB and saves marginally increase the balance of the game. Melee types, who are well known for taking the first two levels in a series of front loaded classes, get even higher high saves, and less dismal low ones, while casting types, who are equally well known for never multiclassing, and only pick up the benefit from a couple of PrC's, fail to reap the rewards as successfully. Melee types are generally worse than caster types, so balance for all.

[chronomatophobe]

Isn't the system strongly implied anyway? I don't understand why people can't take note and adopt it as core.

[eggynack]

Isn't the system strongly implied anyway? I don't understand why people can't take note and adopt it as core.
Whaddya mean "strongly implied"? The system seems pretty explicitly non-fractional as a default, and fractional BAB and saves are pretty explicitly a variant rule. I mean, it's a great rule set, and most games should probably use it for that reason, but I don't see the point in calling it RAW (I don't think core means what you're saying it means here).

[chronomatophobe]

Whaddya mean "strongly implied"? The system seems pretty explicitly non-fractional as a default, and fractional BAB and saves are pretty explicitly a variant rule. I mean, it's a great rule set, and most games should probably use it for that reason, but I don't see the point in calling it RAW (I don't think core means what you're saying it means here).

I guess I'm the type to over analyze things, but I thought fractional BAB/Saves were a thing before the official entry in UA. It made sense to assume you got 1 BAB for fighter types, .75 for rogue types, .5 for wizards and so on. As long as you governed it by the dictum of "always round down" like D&D 3.5 does, nothing changes. That is to say, you can make more viable gishes and they don't suffer from over-saving and low BAB.

But I can't be the only one to notice the pattern and see what they did. I'm not saying it was official before UA, but it was obvious.

[eggynack]

I guess I'm the type to over analyze things, but I thought fractional BAB/Saves were a thing before the official entry in UA. It made sense to assume you got 1 BAB for fighter types, .75 for rogue types, .5 for wizards and so on. As long as you governed it by the dictum of "always round down" like D&D 3.5 does, nothing changes. That is to say, you can make more viable gishes and they don't suffer from over-saving and low BAB.

But I can't be the only one to notice the pattern and see what they did. I'm not saying it was official before UA, but it was obvious.
Ah. Yeah, I guess that makes some sense. Still, it feels rather odd to just call these the default rules when they're explicitly not that.

[chronomatophobe]

Ah. Yeah, I guess that makes some sense. Still, it feels rather odd to just call these the default rules when they're explicitly not that.

I've never played with a group that didn't default to it, but I understand that some people might not get it/opt to it.

I'll just never know why. Unless they want to punish multiclassing "I attack" types and pay for it in godly saves.

I mean, because if anything the nonfractional BAB/Saves system reinforces the tier system.

[Yuki Akuma]

I've never played with a group that didn't default to it, but I understand that some people might not get it/opt to it.

I'll just never know why. Unless they want to punish multiclassing "I attack" types and pay for it in godly saves.

I mean, because if anything the nonfractional BAB/Saves system reinforces the tier system.

Most people don't do it because those aren't the rules.

It's not a case of people "not understanding". It's a case of people actually following the rules in the book that says "your BaB is equal to the numbers given on your class table, and if you have more than one you add the numbers together".

[Chronos]

Fractional BAB and saves certainly aren't the default rule, but I would venture to say that they're a good rule. They never hurt the players and sometimes help them, and some DMs might instinctively shy away from that, but really, the vast majority of the time, the rule makes no difference at all, and in the few cases where it does matter, it's just taking away a penalty that doesn't make much sense to begin with, and puts certain characters on a par with other, very similar, characters.

I think the biggest argument I can see against them is that they're a little bit more complicated than the default rule, but so often don't matter, so that some groups might not think the complication is worth bothering with. It's also worth noting that the cases where it makes a difference are significantly rarer in a core-only game, since there are so few classes available to dip, and many of them don't really make sense to combine anyway.

[rot42]

I guess I'm the type to over analyze things, but I thought fractional BAB/Saves were a thing before the official entry in UA. It made sense to assume you got 1 BAB for fighter types, .75 for rogue types, .5 for wizards and so on. As long as you governed it by the dictum of "always round down" like D&D 3.5 does, nothing changes. That is to say, you can make more viable gishes and they don't suffer from over-saving and low BAB.

But I can't be the only one to notice the pattern and see what they did. I'm not saying it was official before UA, but it was obvious.

That is certainly how I read the PHB on that glorious day lo these many years ago. The lookup tables were clearly generated using this algorithm, so going to the source makes sense and avoids opaque misprints and the like. As a practical matter, fractional BAB/saves makes the discontinuous stairsteps of level advancement slightly smoother.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't see any cons, to be honest. It's a much more intuitive system than the integer-only method in the PHB.

[Greenish]

Well, the obvious con is that it helps, nay, encourages multiclassing, which we all know is what the filthy munchkins and powergamers do. :smalltongue:

[Chronos]

I don't see any cons, to be honest. It's a much more intuitive system than the integer-only method in the PHB.
Intuition varies from person to person. Some people (you and I included) find a formula more intuitive, while others find a lookup table more intuitive. I've certainly seen homebrewed classes presented with progressions that didn't match any of the formulas; presumably the authors of those classes didn't consider the formulas intuitive at all.

[DR27]

The reason not to use this rule? You can't do fractions (even though pretty much every electronic char sheet gen can do it for you), or just plain want to punish multiclassing.

Reasons to use fractional BAB/Saves? Because a Monk/Rogue should be able to attack as well as a wizard at least.

Read the original wizards article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060303a) for more - they basically come to the conclusion that it's a weird metagame construct that screws over multiclassed characters.

[Icewraith]

I ban getting the starting 2.5 good save more than once per save using fractional rules (it becomes another .5).

That way a level 20 wizard and a wizard 5/caster prestige class 7/other caster prestige class 3/other other prestige class 5 have the same will save bonus. Otherwise one character has a +12 will save and the other +18.

[eggynack]

I ban getting the starting 2.5 good save more than once per save using fractional rules (it becomes another .5).

That way a level 20 wizard and a wizard 5/caster prestige class 7/other caster prestige class 3/other other prestige class 5 have the same will save bonus. Otherwise one character has a +12 will save and the other +18.
I tend to think the rule is fine as is. Like, your somewhat dippy wizard only got like three extra foomfs. On the other hand, something like a barbarian 2/fighter 2/ranger 2/warblade 1/runescarred berserker 10/some other PrC 3 will get like five foomfs, and won't have to invest in prerequisites for PrC's as much. You could even go all out dipping, not take on any prerequisite requirements, and multiclass all the time. Wizards gain an advantage, but melee guys gain a bigger advantage, so wizards are at a relative disadvantage, and that's a good thing. Other high tier classes are often even worse at doing the dips for saves thing.

[Chronos]

Plus, just increasing save bonuses at all tends to favor mundanes over spellcasters, since spellcasters target saving throws much more often than mundanes do.

[eggynack]

Plus, just increasing save bonuses at all tends to favor mundanes over spellcasters, since spellcasters target saving throws much more often than mundanes do.
I hadn't considered that one, but it's quite true. As a general rule, I like any mechanic that increases the balance of the game, even if it causes the system to incentivize weird stuff. Extra saves at first level is one of those mechanics, so I like it.

[Icewraith]

The trick is the prestige classes a character normally goes for are usually good and deficient in the same saves his base class was. Most melee prestige classes are fort or fort/reflex, most divine classes are fort/will, monk classes tend to be f/r/w, etc.

As a DM, I also vastly prefer the environment where the level 20 base saving throw ranges between six and twelve instead of six and forty (or 50 using fractional). Considering a spellcaster's nonepic save dc generally caps out at 19+stat (+2 for greater spell focus) and that the cloak of resistance is a thing, reducing the variance in saving throws results in less rocket tag. The worst save DC a character should be facing is about 35... 18 int level 20 spellcaster, fully invested in spellcasting stat, +6 item, +5 inherent bonus, greater spell focus, 9th level spell. A character with a +5 cloak, +6 item, no inherent bonus, bad save (+6), buys iron will or similar for 5k because hey why not level 20 WBL and starts with a 10 in that stat STILL negates a 9th level spell from someone who blew 2 feats and most of their point buy to be really good at casting that school of spells on an 18. Starts with a 14 in the stat that controls that saving throw? 16. Similar inherent bonus? 14-13. Good save? 8-7. Good save and it's your most important, fully invested stat? 5. Remember this is against a 9th level spell.

Remember also there's a number of classes that reinforce your bad saving throws with a different, potentially more valuable stat. There are racial bonuses against spell schools. Any further increase in base saving throws past twelve pushes spellcasters into spamming the no save, just suck spells because otherwise they can't count on a spell that allows a save to do anything. A 6-18 (or worse) save curve pushes that range into the "don't roll a 1 territory" on a 9th level spell, which is IMO, boring as hell and leads to some characters never being bothered by entire classes of spells as long as they don't roll a 1, while other characters who fall behind in the magical arms race or just aren't optimized are hoping for a natural 20. The trick is that the larger the save disparity the higher the save DCs of the monsters get, because the DM needs to challenge all the players and not just the ones with bad saving throws. (Similar to optimizing armor class... the DM usually bases the Monster to-hit on the most difficult-to-hit member of the party because otherwise that character auto-wins and the monster is boring) The ideal balance point for saving throws is that players with a significant advantage still fail on about a 5 while players with a significant disadvantage need about a 14-15 to succeed. That's just not possible with item disparity and a 12 point variance in average base saving throws.

Limiting the starting good save removes the problem part of the save curve that forces the save dc arms race in the first place, and subtly encourages the players to at least snag a 2.5 from somewhere to shore up that weak save while not penalizing people who stick with one class the whole time.

TL,DR: Building a character that's essentially immune to most spells due to high saving throws forces the DM to forcecage you or similar in order to inconveniance you without killing you outright.

[TuggyNE]

Considering a spellcaster's nonepic save dc generally caps out at 19+stat (+2 for greater spell focus) and that the cloak of resistance is a thing, reducing the variance in saving throws results in less rocket tag.

It's less rocket tag and more no-save-just-lose that's the issue here; high saves don't do anything special to incentivize going first and hitting hard, but they do strongly incentivize using spells without saves or spells that are still useful on a save.


The worst save DC a character should be facing is about 35... 18 int level 20 spellcaster, fully invested in spellcasting stat, +6 item, +5 inherent bonus, greater spell focus, 9th level spell. A character with a +5 cloak, +6 item, no inherent bonus, bad save (+6), buys iron will or similar for 5k because hey why not level 20 WBL and starts with a 10 in that stat STILL negates a 9th level spell from someone who blew 2 feats and most of their point buy to be really good at casting that school of spells on an 18.

You're not reassuring me here. A 15% chance of saving against fairly common attack spells (seriously, at level 20 just about the only save spells you're going to be using are 7th-, 8th-, and 9th-level) is terrible, especially since without buying the feat it's actually 5%. Worse, a lot of classes can't afford much more than a 10 in Dex and/or Wis, whereas a spellcaster almost always focuses as much as possible on their casting stat.


Remember also there's a number of classes that reinforce your bad saving throws with a different, potentially more valuable stat. There are racial bonuses against spell schools. Any further increase in base saving throws past twelve pushes spellcasters into spamming the no save, just suck spells because otherwise they can't count on a spell that allows a save to do anything. A 6-18 (or worse) save curve pushes that range into the "don't roll a 1 territory" on a 9th level spell, which is IMO, boring as hell and leads to some characters never being bothered by entire classes of spells as long as they don't roll a 1, while other characters who fall behind in the magical arms race or just aren't optimized are hoping for a natural 20.

Yes. The thing is, it's not the bad saves that are the problem here, but the good saves. Or rather, both are problematic, but for opposite reasons; to the extent fractional saves increase bad saves, to that extent they are performing a valuable service, but what usually happens instead is that they patch up good saves far beyond necessity.


The ideal balance point for saving throws is that players with a significant advantage still fail on about a 5 while players with a significant disadvantage need about a 14-15 to succeed. That's just not possible with item disparity and a 12 point variance in average base saving throws. Limiting the starting good save removes the problem part of the save curve that forces the save dc arms race in the first place, and subtly encourages the players to at least snag a 2.5 from somewhere to shore up that weak save while not penalizing people who stick with one class the whole time.

Agreed, more or less.