The problem with all of these +1d6 SA / 2 levels PrCs is that they gain it at 1st level, which means that the 5th or 7th level Rogue is getting +1d6 ahead of the curve. If this was only an issue with one class, +1d6 isn't that big a deal, but since there are a half-dozen PrCs out there that advance SA at 1st level, and some of them are really easy to qualify for, it just exacerbates how insanely good SA can be, when it works, turning the SA optimized Rogue into either 'too good' for an encounter or 'completely useless' for an encounter, depending on whether he can get off his six +15d6 stabs that roundUmm... take 4 PrCs with SA in the first level and watch your BAB plunge, and your bad saves go through the floor. I guess this is a good argument against fractional BAB/ saves, they enable this kind of brokenness.
True, but fractional Sneak Attack progression would solve that particular problem.
Many of these prestige classes could simply be counted as levels in the original class for the purposes of continuing some progressions, such as Sneak Attack. Starting the progression from scratch would apply only to classes that did not have it in the first place and nevertheless qualified for and entered into the prestige class in question.
I was hoping this was why the boards were down earlier.. dang :)
Think it'll be "Web Enhancement 2" in the Beta zip file?
I was hoping this was why the boards were down earlier.. dang :)
Think it'll be "Web Enhancement 2" in the Beta zip file?
Not of as an hour ago.
Be patient, it will come. Please do not hammer the site.
I figure if I don't get it today, it will be here tomorrow. Besides, I do work I should be doing right now anyway.
Director of Games
|
How about NOW!
Please make sure to read the thread in the announcements forum.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How about NOW!
Please make sure to read the thread in the announcements forum.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank you! Downloading and about to read!
Thank you! Downloading and about to read!How about NOW!
Please make sure to read the thread in the announcements forum.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
First impressions... Nice artwork and duelist makes me want to change character to do a finesse swords person.
|
I have a question ... the assasin prestige class mentions the 1st level class feature 'spells', but it isn't detailed anywhere. Is this something to be ignored, or a missing class feature?
I just noticed that as well. I'm sure Jason will fix it when he has time. First impresssions are that these rock! Well done, Jason! I am way more psyched by this than any 4E stuff I've seen. The only thing I am mildly disappointed by is that the blackguard got cut. I guess it's because hellknights will be the Pathfinder version of blackguards.
|
Creative Director
|
At this point, the PF RPG assassin does not cast spells. Ignore the bit about "spells" being a class feature. If playtesting reveals that the assassin needs his spells back, we'll handle that later, but for now... no spells for the PF RPG assassin.
Hellknights are not the Pathfinder version of blackguards. Hellknights are lawful neutral, mostly.
The reason Jason cut the blackguard (and he'll go into this in more detail soon enough) is that we think that class option should be a standard class (the antipaladin) rather than a prestige class. We're not sure how to work that out yet though. But it won't likely be via the prestige class route.
The reason Jason cut the blackguard (and he'll go into this in more detail soon enough) is that we think that class option should be a standard class (the antipaladin) rather than a prestige class. We're not sure how to work that out yet though. But it won't likely be via the prestige class route.
The Blackguard and the Paladin do need to follow parallel structures. That one was a base class and the other a prestige never made a great deal of sense.
(Of course, I am still of the opinion that both should be prestige classes, but that's me. :D )
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
Couple of quick notes. We cut the blackguard because it is far more suitable as a base class. While this is an avenue I want to explore, I am not sure that the core book will give me that opportunity.
As for the assassin, we cut the spells for a number of reasons, the first being that it did not sit well with the theme of the class. Second, the assassin needed better class features, so we cut spells to compensate. At this point, I am not saying it is a done deal, but I would love to get some solid feedback on this class when the playtest period opens.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Fine by me, I could never figure out why assassins cast spells in the first place...(sorry, my inner 1e grognard is coming out again...)
I LIKED assassin spells! Of course, I'm the freak who likes ranger and paladin spells, too, and wants to turn the monk's ki pool into a spell list. Fighter spells? Hmmm, tempting...
|
Fine by me, I could never figure out why assassins cast spells in the first place...(sorry, my inner 1e grognard is coming out again...)I LIKED assassin spells! Of course, I'm the freak who likes ranger and paladin spells, too, and wants to turn the monk's ki pool into a spell list. Fighter spells? Hmmm, tempting...
Fine, dip a toe into the sorcerer levels pool then! :P
Hey there all,
Couple of quick notes. We cut the blackguard because it is far more suitable as a base class. While this is an avenue I want to explore, I am not sure that the core book will give me that opportunity.
As for the assassin, we cut the spells for a number of reasons, the first being that it did not sit well with the theme of the class. Second, the assassin needed better class features, so we cut spells to compensate. At this point, I am not saying it is a done deal, but I would love to get some solid feedback on this class when the playtest period opens.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm sorry but, how do the spells not sit well in a game were barbarians can set their weapons alight by being angry and rogues can cast spells of their own?
With the exception of the capstone ability (a death effect with no wait time, that can be abused very easily. Remember that prestige classes won't always give out their capstone abilities at ECL 20) the new features don't really boost the class that much. Silent death, while useful, won't be that useful, since a sneaky enough assassin will generallly be able to kill in such a way that no one will know it was him/her (by say, for instance, killing someone out of sight before moving on) and hide in plain sight was moved up to 8th level.
I agree that the spells were one of the few things that made the assassin distinct. If that in itself isn't a good reason, then think about backwards compatability.
Have to say I am happy the spells are gone from the assassin. It never set right with me thay had em
|
Fine by me, I could never figure out why assassins cast spells in the first place...(sorry, my inner 1e grognard is coming out again...)I LIKED assassin spells! Of course, I'm the freak who likes ranger and paladin spells, too, and wants to turn the monk's ki pool into a spell list. Fighter spells? Hmmm, tempting...
Fighters already have at-will spells called Feats. ;)
I'm sorry but, how do the spells not sit well in a game were barbarians can set their weapons alight by being angry and rogues can cast spells of their own?
Barbarians rage giving access to quasimysticial abilities makes sense. It taps into the concept of Berserkir Ekstasis. Ekstasis, or ecstacy, is a state of hightened awareness common to shamanic cultures andmany religions in which drugs, physicial pain, sex or physicial exersion are used to change ones perseption. In this state spirits can be seen, spoken to and interacted with, or channelled. It is reasonable to assume that when a barbarian is raging and his blade bursts into flame, he isn't doing it, but asking an elemental totem of his tribe to do it. He can't see in the dark because he 'really hates the darkness, he can do it because he is emboding the spirit of a owl, however briefly.
Why was it that the assassin was able to cast spells again?
|
|
Hey there all,
Couple of quick notes. We cut the blackguard because it is far more suitable as a base class. While this is an avenue I want to explore, I am not sure that the core book will give me that opportunity.
As for the assassin, we cut the spells for a number of reasons, the first being that it did not sit well with the theme of the class. Second, the assassin needed better class features, so we cut spells to compensate. At this point, I am not saying it is a done deal, but I would love to get some solid feedback on this class when the playtest period opens.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I can understand that. I think it was a PrC just because it was an evil only class. Are the alternate alignment paladins in Unearthed Arcana OGL? If they are, that would seem to be a good place to start with to make a blackguard base class.
Why was it that the assassin was able to cast spells again?
Barbarians rage giving access to quasimysticial abilities makes sense. It taps into the concept of Berserkir Ekstasis. Ekstasis, or ecstacy, is a state of hightened awareness common to shamanic cultures andmany religions in which drugs, physicial pain, sex or physicial exersion are used to change ones perseption. In this state spirits can be seen, spoken to and interacted with, or channelled. It is reasonable to assume that when a barbarian is raging and his blade bursts into flame, he isn't doing it, but asking an elemental totem of his tribe to do it. He can't see in the dark because he 'really hates the darkness, he can do it because he is emboding the spirit of a owl, however briefly.
I'm not questioning the barbarians ability to use magical abilities (at least not in this thread) but how spells do not fit for one class when other supposedly non-magic-orientated classes still have magical abilities. Why should a barbarian, what is supposed to be an uncivilized tribal warrior, able to interact with spirts and mystic forces (which FYI, was somthing shamens, not normal barbarians, were supposed to be able to do) and the rogue cast spells as spell-like abilities (which, in essense mean there aren't any components or chance of spell-failure) but an assassin can't cast off spells? As I argued on another topic, it's pretty incosistant to go out your way to give magical abilities to a previously non-magical class because it "caters to other cultures" and not only not provide such abilities for other classes, but actually remove such abilities.
You claim the barbarian should have these powers because in RL some cultues beleived their warriors had access to such power, so why is it you defend the removal of the assassin's magical means of disguising himself (disguise person), reach normally unaccessable areas (jump), or hide their tracks (pass without trace)? Better yet, what good is an assassin that can't even hide his/her evil aura from detecting paladins, somthing an assassin with spells could prepere against.
The claim is that spells were removed because the "boost" assassins gained were too much without somthing to lose, but in my eyes they've gained very little. In total the assassin has gained the ability to hide a dagger on his/her body (which I don't consider that great. To even use a sleight of hand check, you need to have at least 1 rank in it. With the new paizo skill system this grants a +4 bonus just from a single rank and the class skill, before adding dextierty), the ability to conceal a death attack (which any well-played assassin could do well anyway) and the capstone ability, which in all honesty I do not like (with no time delay what-so-ever, I can see an assassin going from a sneaky epsionage character to a battle-rogue i.e "Don't bother sneaking up on them, I'll just stand there and you flank".)
Even if you don't consider these abilities as underpowered or out of place as me, theres still the fact that the assassin requires intellegence to use spells, requiring the assassin to spread his/her ability scores more. Even then, these spells are almost needed. In all honesty, if I lived in a D'n'D world, I'd be more likely to hire an assassin who relies on more than simply "I'm sneaky" to get the job done. I'd aim for an assassin who can grantee not being detected (which can only be done using magic in such a setting).
Fighters already have at-will spells called Feats. ;)Fine by me, I could never figure out why assassins cast spells in the first place...(sorry, my inner 1e grognard is coming out again...)I LIKED assassin spells! Of course, I'm the freak who likes ranger and paladin spells, too, and wants to turn the monk's ki pool into a spell list. Fighter spells? Hmmm, tempting...
Don't forget the infamous, "Fighter Knock" and "Fighter Sleep" spells!
(Fighter Knock = Bash down door)
(Fighter Sleep = Beat foe to unconciousness)
I think that the assassin losing such low-level staples as disguise self, featherfall, ghost sound and maybe even darkness hurt the assassin as a whole. A "rogue with tricks" can be done admirably with the new rogue - I think a fantasy guild of specialised agents of death would be, at worst, quasi-mystical and, at best, outright magical.
|
|
I think that the assassin losing such low-level staples as disguise self, featherfall, ghost sound and maybe even darkness hurt the assassin as a whole. A "rogue with tricks" can be done admirably with the new rogue - I think a fantasy guild of specialised agents of death would be, at worst, quasi-mystical and, at best, outright magical.
Here's the thing, though. it's a prestige class, not a base class. If you wish to have a magic casting assassin, dip into a couple levels of wizard before taking the PrC. You'll have access to scribe scroll in addition to the ability to cast from scrolls without having to resort to UMD, which will allow you to fill any gaps you may have in what you wish to have as "useful spells". Furthermore, you'll have access (again, without UMD) to higher level wizard spells that weren't on the original assassin spell list (through scrolls). Heck, knock off a wizard and jack his loot.
The absence of spellcasting in the Beta assassin isn't an insurmountable deficiency, but it does allow a wider range of assassin builds, not all of whom must have arcane magic. I think it's a nice touch.
Here's the thing, though. it's a prestige class, not a base class. If you wish to have a magic casting assassin, dip into a couple levels of wizard before taking the PrC. The absence of spellcasting in the Beta assassin isn't an insurmountable deficiency, but it does allow a wider range of assassin builds, not all of whom must have arcane magic. I think it's a nice touch.
For those with a level of Psion or Psychic Warrior in advance, WotC's Psychic Assassin (was on the "mind's eye" free online column) makes an excellent power-using assassin, and one easily converted to an Arcane Assassin by simply swapping references to "manifester" to "caster." You get a lower sneak attack progression, but something like 7/10 spellcasting progression.
By dipping into wizard/sorcerer, you lose yet more BAB, which was already under threat by being a rogue/assassin. Since the assassin is by necessity more focussed on stealth and combat than the rogue, losing even more BAB is not a good thing.
|
|
Yeah, the BAB hit hurts. I wish they had altered the BAB progression of the assassain and other 3/4 BAB classes so that they would have +8 BAB at 10th level so a rogue 10/assassain 10 wouldn't have a worse BAB than a rogue 20. At least a rogue/assassain can still get some spells from his rogue levels.
|
|
Yeah, the BAB hit hurts. I wish they had altered the BAB progression of the assassain and other 3/4 BAB classes so that they would have +8 BAB at 10th level so a rogue 10/assassain 10 wouldn't have a worse BAB than a rogue 20. At least a rogue/assassain can still get some spells from his rogue levels.
If they did fractional BAB as an optional rule, that would presumably solve the problem.
|
Director of Games
|
Yeah, the BAB hit hurts. I wish they had altered the BAB progression of the assassain and other 3/4 BAB classes so that they would have +8 BAB at 10th level so a rogue 10/assassain 10 wouldn't have a worse BAB than a rogue 20. At least a rogue/assassain can still get some spells from his rogue levels.
Is a difference of 1 worth changing the entire system? It was worth it to me to alter the save progressions to keep things more in line, but that one BAB oddity seems like an unnecessary change.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Is a difference of 1 worth changing the entire system? It was worth it to me to alter the save progressions to keep things more in line, but that one BAB oddity seems like an unnecessary change.Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
How is the 1 point change keeping anything in line? The base classes (into which I can multiclass without restrictive prerequisites) all start with a +2. It seems to me that going to +1 in the strong progressions for PrCs actually puts things out of line in order to solve a problem that no one has actually demonstrated (at least that I've seen) actually exists.
How is the 1 point change keeping anything in line? The base classes (into which I can multiclass without restrictive prerequisites) all start with a +2. It seems to me that going to +1 in the strong progressions for PrCs actually puts things out of line in order to solve a problem that no one has actually demonstrated (at least that I've seen) actually exists.
Yeah, I really don't get the point of having a whole new set of save formulas besides "good saves" and "bad saves"; now we have "good PrC saves" and "bad PrC saves".
|
|
Yeah, I really don't get the point of having a whole new set of save formulas besides "good saves" and "bad saves"; now we have "good PrC saves" and "bad PrC saves".
In fact, to pick a simple example, if you did 5 levels of Rogue and then 10 of assassin, you'd now end up with the same saves in Reflex but actually one point worse in each of Fortitude and Will. Compare that with just multiclassing into another base class. So, I don't understand how the solution is better than the supposed problem (which, as I say, I never saw demonstrated convincingly anyhow).
|
Director of Games
|
Yeah, I really don't get the point of having a whole new set of save formulas besides "good saves" and "bad saves"; now we have "good PrC saves" and "bad PrC saves".
How is the 1 point change keeping anything in line? The base classes (into which I can multiclass without restrictive prerequisites) all start with a +2. It seems to me that going to +1 in the strong progressions for PrCs actually puts things out of line in order to solve a problem that no one has actually demonstrated (at least that I've seen) actually exists.
There tends to be a problem at higher levels, where multiclass characters have a near automatic save value for their "good" saves and an absolutely pathetic value for their "poor" saves.
Take for example, a rogue 5/wizard 5/arcane trickster 5. Under the old system, he would have Fort +3, Ref +9, Will +9. Under the new system, he has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +8.
Compare this to a straight rogue 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +4, or a wizard 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +8.
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Why was it that the assassin was able to cast spells again?
There was no rationale given, but, along the lines of your ekstasis argument (which was very cool), one could just as easily say that the god of murder rewards those who take a life in his name with a smattering of sorcerous might, specifically tailored to their dark profession. Even in a god-adjacent scenario, the act of murder might have some twisted sacramental value to the assassin, and he somehow draws potential from the lives he ends, increasing his personal power with each black sacrifice.
Justification is easy enough to add after the fact, but a non-magical 'I stab people in the face' assassin class is, IMO, far more 'generally' useful than a more specific 'gains occult power by killing people' assassin class.
|
|
There tends to be a problem at higher levels, where multiclass characters have a near automatic save value for their "good" saves and an absolutely pathetic value for their "poor" saves.Take for example, a rogue 5/wizard 5/arcane trickster 5. Under the old system, he would have Fort +3, Ref +9, Will +9. Under the new system, he has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +8.
Compare this to a straight rogue 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +4, or a wizard 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +8.
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Personally, I can see that there would be benefit to fiddling with the save progression, but I think that it has to work the same way in PrCs as in base classes. At the moment, a Sorceror can still m/c into Wizard and get the +2/+2 boost, or (to pick an example with relatively common prime stats) a Fighter into a Barbarian. That going into a prestige class will hurt your saves compared to going into a core class doesn't seem to make sense to me (and I note that the Rogue-Assassin I mentioned earlier takes a hit on their weak saves...).
I'm also not entirely bothered by virtual autosuccess in the good saves. Autofail in the weak ones isn't so good.
Does it bother me enough to think it should be changed (when the aim is to fix what's patently broke)? Not really.
|
|
There tends to be a problem at higher levels, where multiclass characters have a near automatic save value for their "good" saves and an absolutely pathetic value for their "poor" saves.Take for example, a rogue 5/wizard 5/arcane trickster 5. Under the old system, he would have Fort +3, Ref +9, Will +9. Under the new system, he has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +8.
Compare this to a straight rogue 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +8, Will +4, or a wizard 12, who has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +8.
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.
Thoughts?
I do like the idea of saves (and BAB) being streamlined to prevent all of those +2s or +0s from stacking up and creating a saving throw (or BAB) that is way out of line for the level range.
A character with three different classes / PrCs isn't at all out of line, in the case of an Arcane Archer, Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight, which are all but *required* to have two base classes and a PrC to achieve their goals, and having a Mystic Theurge, for instance, ending up with an overly generous Will save, and a horriblenogoodverybad Reflex save (as well as a rockbottom BAB) is, IMO, a wonky artefact of the system that should be ironed out.
It's not like this is specifically targetted to deal with outrageous corner cases where someone takes a level dip in five different core classes and three PrCs. There are enough bog-standard PrCs (like the three above) that require a minimum of two core classes to qualify for, making for three classes minimum, after the PrC is taken.
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.
I like the altered saves. I think BAB should get a similar treatment though so PrCs that have a 3/4 progression don't start out on their +0 BAB level.
Having the Multiclass characters follow a similar progression would be good as well.
Here's the thing, though. it's a prestige class, not a base class. If you wish to have a magic casting assassin, dip into a couple levels of wizard before taking the PrC.
Shouldn't the fact that it's a PrC mean it should be as different from a base class as possible? Besides, a few levels in a spellcasting class still wouldn't be encouraged for the assassin as the class provides no boost to existing spellcasting levels.
You'll have access to scribe scroll in addition to the ability to cast from scrolls without having to resort to UMD, which will allow you to fill any gaps you may have in what you wish to have as "useful spells". Furthermore, you'll have access (again, without UMD) to higher level wizard spells that weren't on the original assassin spell list (through scrolls). Heck, knock off a wizard and jack his loot.
This makes a good arguement for a 1-level spellcaster dip, but not for why an assassin should lose out in spells. Besides, what would make for a more reliable means of infiltration, casting a spell or using a scroll/wand which could have a potentially harmful effect if it doesn't work. Assassination is a dangerous job as it is, using UMD without a party to back you up is even more risky. Besides, even if you use wands or scolls of spells that you know from being a wizard, the poor caster level will cause the effects to not last long at all, unless you have more than just a few levels.
The absence of spellcasting in the Beta assassin isn't an insurmountable deficiency, but it does allow a wider range of assassin builds, not all of whom must have arcane magic. I think it's a nice touch.
The spells wern't restrictive in any way, so I don't see how the class can be more versatile than it would be with them. In fact your proposal to take a level dip in wizard would actually heavily restrict the class as not only would it mean a loss of BAB (something needed for a good assassin) but in order for the spellcasting to be any good you'd need several levels and be restricted to no armour.
Now I'm not a big fan of non-magical classes gaining spells or magic-heavy abilities, but in the case of the assassin I felt it made sense since any potential target is bound to have magical protection. And it made the class a little more distinct from the rogue, as it stands the class is just a rogue with Death Attack instead of Rogue tricks, and the spells would be a nice way to spread the gap a little further.
|
|
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yes, please. But like others mentioned above, consider dealing with BAB as well so that the 3/4 characters are not hosed by taking a prestige class. My players are frequently hesitant to take rogue-ish prestige classes because the BAB ends up in the tank...not sure if this is necessary in multiclassing though.
|
|
Now I'm not a big fan of non-magical classes gaining spells or magic-heavy abilities, but in the case of the assassin I felt it made sense since any potential target is bound to have magical protection. And it made the class a little more distinct from the rogue, as it stands the class is just a rogue with Death Attack instead of Rogue tricks, and the spells would be a nice way to spread the gap a little further.
As someone said above, I think that there does have to be, pretty soon, a spell-casting assassin PrC as well as this non-casting variety (like the Rolemaster Nightshade). I guess it might be the Red Mantis thingy, updated for PFRPG, or perhaps something more widespread.
|
|
Now I'm not a big fan of non-magical classes gaining spells or magic-heavy abilities, but in the case of the assassin I felt it made sense since any potential target is bound to have magical protection. And it made the class a little more distinct from the rogue, as it stands the class is just a rogue with Death Attack instead of Rogue tricks, and the spells would be a nice way to spread the gap a little further.As someone said above, I think that there does have to be, pretty soon, a spell-casting assassin PrC as well as this non-casting variety (like the Rolemaster Nightshade). I guess it might be the Red Mantis thingy, updated for PFRPG, or perhaps something more widespread.
Okay I know this isn't really the thread or the place for it but since we are already discussing it. Why not in regards to assassin spells do what they did with familiars, Animal companions and paladin mounts? Pretty much give you the option of taking the spellcasting option but if you decide not to you get other abilities instead?
|
|
On the subject of saves and BAB progressions, I don't see that the changes to the system are worth the hassle even if they are done across the board (at present, the mismatch between core classes and PrCs is bad; as I say, it seems that a Rogue 5/Assassin 10 is worse off than a Rogue 15, achieving parity only on reflex save). However, why not an optional rule like the one suggested earlier by Charles Evans where you just sum levels of 'good X save' and 'bad X save' for each X of Reflex, Fortitude and Will and read off the generic table for good and bad progressions then sum them for each X. Some people will think it a hassle and it will produce different results from the 3.5 stuff (which is part of why I don't like the new PrC save progressions, because it's a change to little benefit and on top of that, it doesn't even match the core classes anymore) but it'll be an option, so no one will feel compelled to do it.
While this is not a huge difference, it does help to keep characters closer to a predictable curve. I am currently considering such rules for base class multiclassing as well, just to even things out.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If you really think it needs to be changed, why not use the fractional saves (and fractional BAB) method from Unearthed Arcana (i.e. what Charles was describing)? It was specifically meant to solve this problem and it doesn't involve remembering two different save progression charts.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also like the changes to the saves progression on the PrCs, and would also like to see something similar done with BAB, as well as multiclassing rules for base classes have modified progressions for both BAB and saves to have the same kind of multiclassing rules no matter if it's a base class or PrC.