Results 1 to 28 of 28
-
2011-07-06, 01:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
This really addresses three points. The first (brought up in the fighter fix planning thread) is that PC saves are just plain too low.
The second is that if you multiclass heavily then your saves can get absurdly high, because you get to apply that +2 to your good saves once for each class.
The third is that if you multiclass heavily then your BAB gets absurdly low; as an extreme example, a 1 wizard/1 rogue/1 sorcerer/1 cleric/1 druid/1 monk has a BAB of 0, while even a pure wizard would have +3 by his level.
Long version
SpoilerTherefore, first a rework of saves:
Saves have 3 progressions, shown as follows:
{table=head]Level | Poor Progression | Normal Progression | Good Progression | Normal Progression Bonus | Good Progression Bonus |
1st | +0 | +0 | +0 | +0/+2 | +2 |
2nd | +0 | +1 | +1 | +0/+2 | +2 |
3rd | +1 | +1 | +2 | +0/+2 | +2 |
4th | +1 | +2 | +3 | +0/+2 | +2 |
5th | +1 | +2 | +4 | +1/+2 | +2 |
6th | +2 | +3 | +5 | +1/+2 | +2 |
7th | +2 | +3 | +5 | +1/+2 | +2 |
8th | +2 | +4 | +6 | +1/+2 | +2 |
9th | +3 | +4 | +7 | +1/+2 | +2 |
10th | +3 | +5 | +8 | +1/+2 | +2 |
11th | +3 | +5 | +9 | +2 | +2 |
12th | +4 | +6 | +10 | +2 | +2 |
13th | +4 | +6 | +10 | +2 | +2 |
14th | +4 | +7 | +11 | +2 | +2 |
15th | +5 | +7 | +12 | +2 | +2 |
16th | +5 | +8 | +13 | +2 | +2 |
17th | +5 | +8 | +14 | +2 | +2 |
18th | +6 | +9 | +15 | +2 | +2 |
19th | +6 | +9 | +15 | +2 | +2 |
20th | +6 | +10 | +16 | +2 | +2 |
[/table]
To determine what save each class and creature type gets:
Racial hit dice have normal saves replace good saves, and poor saves replace poor saves.
Classes have good saves replace good saves, and normal saves replace poor saves.
Bonuses: Normal and good saves have additional bonuses. Unlike the base save bonus, this can only be applied once to each save, no matter how many classes you take. Some normal save bonuses have two values; the first is for normal saves from classes, while the second is for normal saves from racial HD.
And then for the rest of the multiclassing issue:
When calculating BAB or any particular save, you may choose to treat any class level (including racial HD) as a level in any other class with an equivalent or inferior progression.
Short version (it's exactly equivalent)Spoiler
Use the fractional BAB/save system. For racial HD, poor saves are worth 1/3 per level and good saves are worth 1/2 per level with a 2 bonus. For class HD, poor saves are worth 1/2 per level with a 0 bonus before level 5, a 1 bonus from level 5 to level 10, and a 2 bonus from level 11 onward, while good saves are worth 5/6 per level with a 2 bonus. The bonus can be applied only once, no matter how many classes you take.
Thoughts?Last edited by Yitzi; 2011-07-07 at 07:29 AM.
-
2011-07-06, 04:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
This is easily fixed by the following two common house rules:
* The initial +2 bonus for a good save only applies once, no matter how many times you enter a class with that bonus.
* Use the fractional save/bab bonus rule from Unearthed Arcana.
There is a separate issue of what classes should have what save bonus, but that's a different matter entirely.
I also think you have made the difference between good and poor saves too big. Even at 20th level, the difference is 6 points -- enough that a given threat can still result in a meaningful chance of success or failure no matter what class the target is. With a 10-point difference as in your table, quite often a character will either save or fail depending on his class, no roll needed.
-
2011-07-06, 04:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- USA
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
That's my knee-jerk reaction too. Discounting a cloak of resistance (because it applies equally to all saves) and without using tomes to increase abilities (only using enhancement items), the difference in saves at level 20 is typically:
Poor: +7 = +6 (base) + 1 (ability)
Good: +14 = +12 (base) + 2 (ability)
Good AND specialized ability (Like Will on a Cleric or Reflex on a Rogue): +20 = +12 (base) + 8 (ability)
[Assuming an ability score of 26: 15 base + 5 level + 6 enhancement]
That's 14 points of difference at the most; the gap doesn't need to be made larger.
While you may say that a character with a poor save will shore up that weakness, mind you that there's 10 points of ability score increase that I didn't use. [18 base + 2 race + 5 level + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent, although prohibitively expensive and cripplingly overspecialized, gives a score of 36]
If you want to add a "medium" progression, the usual one suggested is "+1 plus .4 per level, round down as usual," which results in a nice progression between the current "poor" and "good" saves.ze/zir | she/her
Omnia Vincit Amor
-
2011-07-06, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
When you work it out, then (if the fractional save/bab bonus rule works like I think it does) it comes out to exactly the same numbers; it's just a different way of expressing it.
I also think you have made the difference between good and poor saves too big. Even at 20th level, the difference is 6 points -- enough that a given threat can still result in a meaningful chance of success or failure no matter what class the target is. With a 10-point difference as in your table, quite often a character will either save or fail depending on his class, no roll needed.
Actually, this won't make the gap substantially larger. It'll fluctuate a bit over the course of 20 levels (1 less at levels 2,4,8,10,14,17,18 and 19, 1 more at levels 3, 9, and 15) and end up at exactly the same at level 20.
While you may say that a character with a poor save will shore up that weakness, mind you that there's 10 points of ability score increase that I didn't use. [18 base + 2 race + 5 level + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent, although prohibitively expensive and cripplingly overspecialized, gives a score of 36]
The real answer, though, isn't that a character with a "poor" save will shore up that weakness as that it'll naturally be shored up to some extent by the ability boosts arising from his taking a monster race (as that's the only way to get a "poor" save), and as for the rest...there's a reason that monster characters tend to be underpowered.
If you want to add a "medium" progression, the usual one suggested is "+1 plus .4 per level, round down as usual," which results in a nice progression between the current "poor" and "good" saves.
-
2011-07-06, 11:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Actually, this won't make the gap substantially larger. It'll fluctuate a bit over the course of 20 levels (1 less at levels 2,4,8,10,14,17,18 and 19, 1 more at levels 3, 9, and 15) and end up at exactly the same at level 20.
Reading more fully, I see that your good /normal replaces raw good/poor for classes, and your normal/poor replaces raw good/poor for racial HD. That makes the gap 6 points plus bonuses for a level 20 human -- still bigger than RAW. And it makes racial HD an even bigger nerf than they are already. Seriously -- people refuse to play creatures with racial HD because those are so bad already. Your fix would make that issue even worse.
-
2011-07-07, 12:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
First, your solution to the issue of multiclassing causing funky things with saves is way over complicated. As others have pointed out, the fractional BAB/save systems work a lot more efficiently for that.
Taking your example 1 wizard/1 rogue/1 sorcerer/1 cleric/1 druid/1 monk you would have (.5*2) + (.75 * 4) = +4 BAB.
For saves he would have 5 levels of good will progression, 2 levels of good reflex progression, and 3 levels of good fort progression. So he would have 2+(.3*1)+(.5*5) = +4.8 Will; 2+(.3*4)+(.5*2) = +4.2 reflex; and 2+(.3*3)+(.5*3) = +4.4 fort.
So say he takes another level in say Ranger. His BAB is now +5, his Fort is now +4.9, his Reflex is now +4.7, and his Will is now +5.1. So even though Will was his bad save from this class, it's the only one that increased this level, due to the amounts he had before.
On another note, I made a post over in the Fighter thread recently that kind of touches on this. The gist of what I suggest is saves using this table:
{table=head]Level | Bad Save | Good Save
1 | +1 | +2
2 | +2 | +3
3 | +2 | +4
4 | +3 | +5
5 | +4 | +5
6 | +4 | +6
7 | +5 | +7
8 | +5 | +8
9 | +6 | +8
10| +7 | +9
11| +7 | +10
12| +8 | +11
13| +8 | +11
14| +9 | +12
15| +10 | +13
16| +10 | +14
17| +11 | +14
18| +11 | +15
19| +12 | +16
20| +13 | +17[/table]
And in exchange for having higher base saves across the board, only add half your relevant stat mod to the saving throw, rather than the full thing. This helps to normalize saves to a degree, and lessen the disparity between say a cleric's will save with his primary stat fueling it, and a wizard's will save with a tertiary stat behind it. Because it seems to me that the huge stat disparity is the biggest thing that drives the system out of whack. If you take two characters with a good will save currently, one with a high stat, and one with a meh stat, the one with the high stat will easily pass saves while the one with a meh stat will almost never pass them. Reducing the influence of the stats allows you to tune the saves more easily.
Actually looking at my table and comparing it to yours, it actually ends up similar to your normal/good progressions, but I'd avoid having a bad progression, personally.
For the purposes of the fractional save system, my good progression is .75(3/4), and the bad is .6(3/5), with the bad save granting a +1 bonus, and the good save granting a +2.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-07, 07:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Wait, how is 6 plus bonuses more than 6 plus bonuses?
And it makes racial HD an even bigger nerf than they are already.
They're apparently more efficient in terms of understandability, so I'll change that; mechanically, however, it's exactly identical.
Taking your example 1 wizard/1 rogue/1 sorcerer/1 cleric/1 druid/1 monk you would have (.5*2) + (.75 * 4) = +4 BAB.
For saves he would have 5 levels of good will progression, 2 levels of good reflex progression, and 3 levels of good fort progression. So he would have 2+(.3*1)+(.5*5) = +4.8 Will; 2+(.3*4)+(.5*2) = +4.2 reflex; and 2+(.3*3)+(.5*3) = +4.4 fort.
And under my system, work it out and it comes out exactly the same (to assuming 1/3 for bad saves.) For instance, for BAB he'll count his cleric, druid, and rogue levels as monk and his wizard level as sorcerer for +3+2=+5 (+6 with ranger)
On another note, I made a post over in the Fighter thread recently that kind of touches on this. The gist of what I suggest is saves using this table:
{table=head]Level | Bad Save | Good Save
1 | +1 | +2
2 | +2 | +3
3 | +2 | +4
4 | +3 | +5
5 | +4 | +5
6 | +4 | +6
7 | +5 | +7
8 | +5 | +8
9 | +6 | +8
10| +7 | +9
11| +7 | +10
12| +8 | +11
13| +8 | +11
14| +9 | +12
15| +10 | +13
16| +10 | +14
17| +11 | +14
18| +11 | +15
19| +12 | +16
20| +13 | +17[/table]
And in exchange for having higher base saves across the board, only add half your relevant stat mod to the saving throw, rather than the full thing. This helps to normalize saves to a degree, and lessen the disparity between say a cleric's will save with his primary stat fueling it, and a wizard's will save with a tertiary stat behind it. Because it seems to me that the huge stat disparity is the biggest thing that drives the system out of whack. If you take two characters with a good will save currently, one with a high stat, and one with a meh stat, the one with the high stat will easily pass saves while the one with a meh stat will almost never pass them. Reducing the influence of the stats allows you to tune the saves more easily.
Actually looking at my table and comparing it to yours, it actually ends up similar to your normal/good progressions, but I'd avoid having a bad progression, personally.
-
2011-07-07, 08:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
-
2011-07-07, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
More like I really hate having normal PCs have far lower saves than monsters of their CR; if making high-CR critters playable as PCs is desired, it makes more sense to bring ECL closer to CR (subject to differences that actually do make the difference between PCs and encounter monsters) than to give monsters the saves of a PC of their HD (more, actually, as they have better abilities).
Last edited by Yitzi; 2011-07-07 at 10:54 AM.
-
2011-07-07, 11:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
That's +5, you miscalculated.
You really should count weak saves as 1/3, rather than just .3; this'll mean Will is 5 (5+1/3 with ranger), reflex will be 2+1/3 (2+5/6 with ranger), and fort will be 5.5 (6 with ranger.)
2+(1/3*1)+(1/2*5) = +4 5/6 Will (5 1/3 with ranger); 2+(1/3*4)+(1/2*2) = +4 1/3 reflex (4 5/6th with ranger); and 2+(1/3*3)+(1/2*3) = +4 1/2 fort. (5 with ranger). It is slightly higher than my original numbers, but nowhere near the difference you seemed to get.
Except I don't think that all good saves should be identical and all poor saves should be identical. Some variation does make sense. (Also, your system will play havoc with monsters; mine is designed to leave that part alone.)
Given your average save DC at level 20 is ~DC32, this makes the low end of a good save capable of saving on roughly a 10, with the high end of a good save saving easily on a 4. The poor save is 4 points behind that, so has to make a roll of a 14 on the low end of the stat distribution, or a roll of a 8 at the high end of the distribution. It is a meaningful difference between a good save and a bad save, but not an unsurmountable one.
As to monsters saves being too high, I'd argue that's a problem with monster design, where having double the hit dice of PCs is considered normal and fine for a monster of equal CR. Remember, the flip side of what you propose, as others have pointed out, is that a player who wants to play a monstrous character gets gimped even further than normal.
edit: Then there's also the negative effects against monsters who DON'T have huge hit dice, such as outsiders. I mean, look at the Balor, his saves are currently on par with average PC saves. You'd be dropping its relative effectiveness a fair bit.Last edited by Seerow; 2011-07-07 at 11:35 AM.
If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-07, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Whoops...I miscalculated.
You're right on this one. I wasn't really thinking, that should have been represented as fractions, rather than decimals, but with fractions, your math is wrong..
2+(1/3*1)+(1/2*5) = +4 5/6 Will (5 1/3 with ranger); 2+(1/3*4)+(1/2*2) = +4 1/3 reflex (4 5/6th with ranger); and 2+(1/3*3)+(1/2*3) = +4 1/2 fort. (5 with ranger). It is slightly higher than my original numbers, but nowhere near the difference you seemed to get.
So, to go through it:
Will: The sorcerer level is counted as a wizard level, and the druid level as a cleric level for 1+1 plus 2 bonus. Once he takes ranger, he can count the ranger and monk levels as rogue for another 1. So 4, 5 with ranger.
Reflex: The sorcerer and wizard levels are counted as druid levels, and the monk level as a rogue level, for 1+1 plus 2 bonus. Again, 4, just like you got.
Fort: The sorcerer and wizard levels are counted as rogue levels, and the druid level as a cleric level, for 2 plus 2 bonus; once he takes ranger, he can count that as a monk level for another 1. So again, the same results you got.
It doesn't make all good saves identical, it just brings them closer together. Instead of having a good save varying anywhere from +16 (+5 cloak of resistance -1 stat) to +30 (+5 cloak of resistance +13 stat), you narrow the range down to between +22 (+5 cloak, -1 stat divided by 2 becomes 0) and +28 (+5 cloak +13 divided by 2 becomes +6). So the range narrows from a difference of 14 down to a difference of 6, which is far more manageable.
Given your average save DC at level 20 is ~DC32, this makes the low end of a good save capable of saving on roughly a 10, with the high end of a good save saving easily on a 4. The poor save is 4 points behind that, so has to make a roll of a 14 on the low end of the stat distribution, or a roll of a 8 at the high end of the distribution. It is a meaningful difference between a good save and a bad save, but not an unsurmountable one.
As to monsters saves being too high, I'd argue that's a problem with monster design, where having double the hit dice of PCs is considered normal and fine for a monster of equal CR.
edit: Then there's also the negative effects against monsters who DON'T have huge hit dice, such as outsiders. I mean, look at the Balor, his saves are currently on par with average PC saves. You'd be dropping its relative effectiveness a fair bit.
-
2011-07-07, 02:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
I was speaking purely of the two approaches to multiclassing; the big difference came from the change in save progressions, which is a different matter entirely.
That said, your explanation did nothing but confuse me further, and makes me further believe that fractional saves are the better answer.
True; the problem is that firstly it plays havoc with the monster stats, and secondly makes the key ability less important than I'm comfortable with. It's also worth noting that even a difference of 14 isn't all that much when the lower value succeeds on a roll of 5.
And the way I see it, a poor save should average around needing a roll of 10 to succeed, and a typical good save (i.e. based off a secondary ability) should succeed on a roll somewhere in the 2-5 area.
The associated stat still matters with my method, it just isn't as huge a deal, which is important because you have 3 different stats associated with saves, and you are as likely to see people with a +0 as you are to see a +13, and having a 65% advantage based on your primary stat is way too huge. You're talking about a high save good stat succeeding on a 2, with a low save low stat succeeding only on a 20.
Hell, in the fighter thread someone was talking about expected saves being 1.5x level for a good save. A person with a good save + good primary stat -already- meets or exceeds that at all levels. The problem is the low end of saves is far too low. Where the good save good primary stat ends at +30, the bad save bad stat ends at +10-+12, that is way too wide of a variation. Reducing the difference from stats is the best way to bring that in line.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-07, 04:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Seeing how much my replacement system seems to confuse people, expressing it as fractional saves (which was the basic idea anyway; I just wanted to base it off the tables for some reason) does make more sense.
These two statements are contradictory. First you say a difference is 14 is fine, then you give your expected values as only 5-8 apart.
Unless you expect the good save to just have a lot of overkill, so you're only failing on a 1 because a natural 1 always fails.
You're talking about a high save good stat succeeding on a 2, with a low save low stat succeeding only on a 20.
An 18 spread looks big, but it isn't really if only half of it overlaps with the portion that makes a difference.
Hell, in the fighter thread someone was talking about expected saves being 1.5x level for a good save. A person with a good save + good primary stat -already- meets or exceeds that at all levels.
The problem is the low end of saves is far too low.
Where the good save good primary stat ends at +30, the bad save bad stat ends at +10-+12, that is way too wide of a variation. Reducing the difference from stats is the best way to bring that in line.
-
2011-07-07, 05:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Not at all...If one save bonus is 10 below the DC, while the other is 4 above, then the bonuses will be 14 apart but the to-save numbers will be only 8 apart.
If you go with bonuses that are 14 apart and saving on a 2 exactly with a good save, you have this:
DC: 32
Good save: +30
Bad Save: +16
Good save saves on a 2, bad save saves on a 16. Yes, that is a HUGE discrepancy.
What you are saying is boost them both up another 4, for the good save still on a 2, but the bad save saves on a 12, which is more reasonable... but now you're just making the good save arbitrarily high rather than actually doing any good at balancing it.
Actually, it doesn't at high levels (if you look at the post you're talking about, I work out the calculations); in addition, that "1.5Xlevel for a good save" isn't assuming good primary stat.
If you actually go for what you want, you will have players with +40 saves if they have a good stat and high save. Please show me anything that's near CR20 that needs saves anywhere near that high.
Saves are frankly pretty much good enough as they are when you have a decent stat feeding into them. The only thing that needs fixed is the gap between good and bad being reduced, which is what my solution does.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-07, 08:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
The normal good save won't. The good save with a primary ability key will. (Of course, you're also more likely to have that penalty if the key ability is your primary.) But yes, I am assuming that the very top will have that level...of course, that just means the enemy will have to target a different save.
What you are saying is boost them both up another 4, for the good save still on a 2, but the bad save saves on a 12, which is more reasonable... but now you're just making the good save arbitrarily high rather than actually doing any good at balancing it.
Frankly, I don't buy into 1.5xlevel is the right number to shoot for.
If you actually go for what you want, you will have players with +40 saves if they have a good stat and high save. Please show me anything that's near CR20 that needs saves anywhere near that high.
Saves are frankly pretty much good enough as they are when you have a decent stat feeding into them. The only thing that needs fixed is the gap between good and bad being reduced, which is what my solution does.
-
2011-07-07, 08:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Well, that's too bad, because when it comes to CR it's right there in the MM.
NPC saves need to be higher because player characters tend to have higher save DCs than enemies. Again, the optimized PC save DCs are in the 32-34 range by level 20, most monsters are in the upper 20s. This makes a drastic difference in what is needed to defend successfully.
And I think that it should be possible to boost your save by boosting the key ability modifier on a 1-for-1 basis. Why should it be any different from any other property, which gets a 1-for-1 basis?
The problem with saving throws is that they go based off of set stats that you aren't guaranteed to have at any set level, so they vary far more wildly than any other mechanic in the game. Imagine for example if any spell the Wizard used that granted a Fort save had a DC based off one ability, any spell granting a Ref save went off a different ability, and any spell granting a Will save went off yet another ability. Now imagine spells per day went off an ability separate from any of those 3.
That is the kind of MAD that saving throws as they currently exist represent. It makes it impossible to predict what the saves are going to be at any given level, because whether the stat guiding that save is the primary driving force. If you gave a Cleric a bad Will Save, he'd still save on a 1 against Will because his wisdom is going to be so high. Yet anyone who doesn't have wisdom as a primary stat suffers.
Reducing the variation from that slightly isn't total homogenization, but it brings the variation within a range that is more acceptable within game parameters, and makes it FAR easier to balance abilities.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-07, 08:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
The martial characters might need other fixes, but they also need this one.
NPC saves need to be higher because player characters tend to have higher save DCs than enemies. Again, the optimized PC save DCs are in the 32-34 range by level 20, most monsters are in the upper 20s.
Because everything else that increases on a 1 for 1 basis is typically based on your class or abilities, and you chose your stats to make sure those things are going up optimally.
Imagine for example if any spell the Wizard used that granted a Fort save had a DC based off one ability, any spell granting a Ref save went off a different ability, and any spell granting a Will save went off yet another ability. Now imagine spells per day went off an ability separate from any of those 3.
That is the kind of MAD that saving throws as they currently exist represent. It makes it impossible to predict what the saves are going to be at any given level, because whether the stat guiding that save is the primary driving force.
You're contrasting cleric and wizard, but that's the extreme case. A better contrast would be barbarian and ranger for Fort, or cleric and monk (or monk and wizard) for Will.
and makes it FAR easier to balance abilities.
-
2011-07-07, 09:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
The martial characters might need other fixes, but they also need this one.
On the flip side, the monsters with those DCs in the upper 20s tend to have them at-will, while the PCs' top DC can really only be used once, maybe twice, per encounter (assuming 1/5 resources per encounter). Also, if you notice, even with the "good" progression I gave, the typical good save (i.e. not based on a primary or enhanced ability) will be a few points below that 30, which largely compensates for those few points between the PC's DC and the monsters'
Nevermind the fact that at will doesn't mean as much when your life expectancy is one encounter.
Consider this, with what you suggest, even a moderate stat (say a 22 at level 20), you have a +12+6+5=+23, and will save against those abilities mentioned (in the mid 20s) on below a 5.
So how is DC different than, say, AC (which depends in part on DEX)?
If you'd like to homebrew some saving throw armor that puts a cap on stat contribution to saves in exchange for a saving throw boost, I'd admit that as a viable alternative solution, which would help significantly narrow the range of saves without reducing the contribution from stats directly. My solution is faster and easier to implement.
Except it isn't; barring extreme cases, it'll be less important than the progression.
You're contrasting cleric and wizard, but that's the extreme case. A better contrast would be barbarian and ranger for Fort, or cleric and monk (or monk and wizard) for Will.
Maybe we have different definitions of "balance"; as far as I'm concerned, balance is primarily determined by one's strongest attack and weakest defense.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-08, 07:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
They don't...they just need high enough weak saves to make the save half the time; their strong saves should naturally be quite a bit stronger. At lower levels, their strong saves can be hit.
So look instead at the Solar, who has casting just like the spellcasters, and his DCs top out at 26 (17+spell level).
Nevermind the fact that at will doesn't mean as much when your life expectancy is one encounter.
Consider this, with what you suggest, even a moderate stat (say a 22 at level 20), you have a +12+6+5=+23, and will save against those abilities mentioned (in the mid 20s) on below a 5.
Heavy Armor can limit sharply how much dex you need to max out. Your typical character will max it out with just a +stat item.
It still seems to me that the extra difference in your strong save (which most monsters won't be targetting if they can help it) isn't such a big deal, and the extra difference in your weak save is desirable.
The point is you are ignoring the extreme case. I am arguing balance the extreme cases, and everything in between falls into place naturally.
This statement doesn't even make any sense.
-
2011-07-08, 10:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
He has a lot of SLAs in addition to those spells, though. Plus SR, regeneration, and no weak saves.
Having all the SLAs and spells in the world means nothing if you can't even hit someone with a bad save with them. And remember this is a CR+3 encounter. And while it has no weak saves, all of its saves are between +18 and +20, which is the same or weaker than a PCs bad save in your system.
I'm not even sure why you're bringing up the SR and regeneration, since the point I was making is that monster save DCs aren't high enough to require the huge saves you are aiming for.
That makes all your abilities closer to at-will, not closer to the restrictions a PC has.
The ONLY thing that has the sort of DCs you're aiming for is a optimized NPC full caster, or a monster with a full NPC wbl using that wealth on ability score boosting. (spending 172,000 on a tome + enhancement item brings the archon's DCs up to where the PCs are... too bad the Archon doesn't actually get WBL.
And when he targets your poor save?
True. So there is that.
It still seems to me that the extra difference in your strong save (which most monsters won't be targetting if they can help it) isn't such a big deal, and the extra difference in your weak save is desirable.
And I'm arguing that because there are 2 independent variables, you can only balance at most 3 of them, and the highest one is the least important (both because you fail on a 1 no matter what and because nobody's going to target a cleric's Will save if they have a choice.)If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2011-07-08, 11:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Except that the bad saves wouldn't be more than +17 plus ability score, which is quite achievable in most cases.
And remember this is a CR+3 encounter. And while it has no weak saves, all of its saves are between +18 and +20, which is the same or weaker than a PCs bad save in your system.
I'm not even sure why you're bringing up the SR and regeneration, since the point I was making is that monster save DCs aren't high enough to require the huge saves you are aiming for.
Whereas I have shown it is possible to balance all 3, you just don't like the solution because it's different, and might actually result in a failed saving throw once in a while.
-
2011-07-08, 11:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
I've thought about it a bit more, and it looks like at level 20 the goal is approximately 17 poor save, 22 good save, and 27 DC. Now to think about how to achieve that...
-
2011-07-08, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
Ok, here's my idea (completely replacing the old idea on changing save slots):
-Amulet of health is moved to the Belt slot, so that someone can take gloves of DEX, periapt of WIS, and belt of health to boost their saves further. At 12k, the first point isn't really all that much more than the 9k for the 5th point of resistance (but of course those who are already maxing out the ability get no further benefit.)
-Belt of giant strength is moved to the Bracers slot, so that the fighter can get both the STR boost and the CON boost.
-Inherent bonuses are capped at +1. This'll keep DCs under control and keep primary ability scores from pulling too far ahead (and will help the MAD classes, which could definitely use it.)
-Character classes' poor progression (but not those of racial HD) is upgraded to 40%Xlevel.
The result: At level 20, poor saves have +8+3+5=16 plus the starting key ability modifier, good saves have 20 plus the starting key ability modifier, and DCs for 8th level spells (as a rough average of those likely to be used over the course of an encounter) are 10+8+3+3=24 plus the starting key ability modifier (generally 4 or 5). So casters still have a somewhat high "hit" chance, but that's compensated for by SR and squishiness (if they're not squishy, that's a separate issue.)
Thoughts?Last edited by Yitzi; 2011-07-08 at 12:37 PM.
-
2011-07-08, 01:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
What if someone doesn't want all of there slots filled with stat boosting items? There are a lot of interesting things in the various books and requiring people to take +x to stat items seems kind of sad.
Also how does capping inherent bonuses help mad characters?
Also also, what's the advantage of you're system over the fractional system? You've said a number of times that they're mechanically the same, but the fractional one's simpler and semi-official, so why use yours?The Focus Sniper: Boom. Head-shot.
Spoiler: Older, and somewhat abandoned, classesThe Chaote: a free form mage.
My [wip] Magic fix: everyone has one, but how many encourage multi-classing?
-
2011-07-08, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
They don't have to; they just won't have as high saves if they don't. Everything has its price.
Also how does capping inherent bonuses help mad characters?
Also also, what's the advantage of you're system over the fractional system? You've said a number of times that they're mechanically the same, but the fractional one's simpler and semi-official, so why use yours?
-
2011-07-11, 12:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
As of the MIC, you can add the functions of a stat booster to any other item in that slot for no markup (e.g. you can add +4 Dex to your gloves of arrow snaring for the price of gloves of arrow snaring plus the price of gloves of dexterity +4), so you don't have to choose between stat boosters and interesting items.
-
2011-07-11, 07:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
It's occurred to me...rather than capping inherent bonuses, better to change them so they actually increase your base ability score, but your total base ability score is capped at 18+HD/4 (rounded down.)
That way, they can't be used to boost an already bloated primary ability, but do help with secondary ability scores (helping both saves and MAD classes overall).
-
2011-07-12, 02:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: Fixing saves and multiclassing chassises (PEACH).
This got me interested in 1e/2e saves...
First up, except for what appears to be a transposition error on the thief/rogue level 21+ row, the saving throw tables are identical between 1e and 2e.
Second, fighters start with the worst saving throws at level 1, but end with the best saving throws at level 20. Their saving throws improve almost twice as fast as any other class.
For my methodology, I compared each class at 1st and 20th levels with the average, best, and worst saves for all four archetypes at levels 1 and 20. I took "poison, paralysis and death" and petrify/polymorph" to both be Fort saves, "rod/staff/wand" and "spells" to be Will saves, and "breath" to be a Reflex save. My results are as follows.
{table=head] Class | Fort | Reflex | Will
Fighter | Average | Average | Average
Rogue | Average | Poor | Average
Cleric | Good | Average | Average
Wizard | Poor | Average | Good
[/table]
The big surprise here was that rogues in 1e/2e had poor Reflex saves. Who knew?