While it doesn't bother me a ton (and I don't mind doing the math). I'm concerned that the new saving throw progression rules are going to be too much of a hassle for backwards compatibility. And on a sidenote, I'd really rather not see these rules adopted for multiclassing, as that will definitely be too much of a hassle. What do the rest of you think?
Personally, I'd prefer if all the PrCs (and all the Base Classes too, for that matter) have a label saying what progression they use (good or poor). This progression would then reference a quick little half-a-page containing the rules for fractional base save bonuses (and base attack bonuses). These rules would include somewhere that you only start out with a +2 to a save/to saves (plural) if it's your first class level, so as to avoid taking a few levels in multiple classes and PrCs just to get high saves (which is what I think these weird save progressions are trying to work towards, anyway).
But I have little confidence such an idea would actually be implemented.
I suppose another option would be to give all Prestige classes good save progression to all saves, without the initial +2. This would involve virtually no change to the overall saves in the current version.
Toning down the frontloading of save-progressions is a good thing. Even making good saves start at +0 would be fine by me.
Personally, I'd prefer if all the PrCs (and all the Base Classes too, for that matter) have a label saying what progression they use (good or poor). This progression would then reference a quick little half-a-page containing the rules for fractional base save bonuses (and base attack bonuses). These rules would include somewhere that you only start out with a +2 to a save/to saves (plural) if it's your first class level, so as to avoid taking a few levels in multiple classes and PrCs just to get high saves (which is what I think these weird save progressions are trying to work towards, anyway).
But I have little confidence such an idea would actually be implemented.
Agreed. I've used this as a house rule for years, and it works well, simple and balanced.
|
The new progressions don't make sense in that they penalise you for multiclassing into a prestige class compared to just multiclassing into a core class. But there's no apparent sign that the core classes will be brought in line. Other than the fact that the new PrC save progressions seemed designed to fix a problem no one can actually demonstrate is very common at all, this incongruity, which also does violence to backwards compatibility, seems to be more trouble than it's worth unless the core classes are also fixed, in which case more violence to backwards compatibility.
Fractional save and BAB as an option, though, would be cool, either in the core or else in an Unearthed Arcana type of PFRPG optional rules supplement.
I like the new system, and would like to see it for multiclassing in general.
The new progressions are like the old, except that the +2 for strong saves is gone and they skip a level.
It would mean that multiclassed characters' saves were closer to their single-classed comrades': The strong level one boost would be gone, but they wouldn't lag behind as bad.
I am very pleased that this solution was adopted for saving throws and am entirely in favor of it. I do think it would work for all multiclassing, including the base classes. Indeed, I would go even slightly further and make good saving throws also start with +0 just like poor ones (though they would still improve faster) - after all the spread being too high between saving throws at higher levels is a common complaint. If there must be a first level bonus, it could be tied to race instead of class (Dwarves could get +2 (or maybe just +1) to Fortitude, Halflings could get the bonus to Reflex, Elves to Willpower, Humans (and Half-Elves and Half-Orcs) could chose any one saving throw and so on for other races).
|
|
I don't think that there was ever a problem, but if there has to be a change then it has to be a change for core classes too. Doing it just for PrCs is pretty unsatisfactory.
As far as the difference between good and bad saves at high level, if you're happy to change progressions then there are other ways to do that than putting all the starting saves to +0, Roman. Indeed, you might as well change what 'good' and 'bad' progressions actually are.
The new progressions don't make sense in that they penalise you for multiclassing into a prestige class compared to just multiclassing into a core class.
This isn't entirely true here, since the poor save progression is improved vs. core class multiclassing.
Here's the differences on total average saves (for all 10 levels):
1 good save: PF saves are 0.3 lower
2 good saves: PF saves are 0.9 lower
3 good saves(rare!): PF saves are 1.5 lower
For the record, giving all good saves (no initial +2, but no skipped level) works out to the same average with 1 good save, 1 lower with two, and 2 lower with three.
I don't think that there was ever a problem, but if there has to be a change then it has to be a change for core classes too. Doing it just for PrCs is pretty unsatisfactory.
Just as I said! Make them part of multiclassing rules!
|
|
I don't think that there was ever a problem, but if there has to be a change then it has to be a change for core classes too. Doing it just for PrCs is pretty unsatisfactory.Just as I said! Make them part of multiclassing rules!
I'd just change it back and then include fractional saves and BAB as an optional rule, myself, giving the choice of a backwards-compatible version and a 'better' version. The current sitation, to me, is worse than either.
|
|
Simple solution to avoid fractional calculation is matching prestige class progression like so:
Good save progression: +1, +2, +2, +3, +3, +4, +4, +5, +5, +6, +6, +7, +7, +8, +8, +9, +9, +10, +10, +11
Poor save progession:+0, +1, +1, +1, +2, +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +5, +5, +6, +6, +6, +7
If you have a good save progression in a particular save from a class, give yourself +1 for that save. This bonus does not stack for other classes you may take that provide a good saving throw of this type.
Add fractional rules as an additional option.
So, a single class character has almsot identical saves:
Bard 1: +0 +2 +2 (same)
Bard 2: +1 +3 +3 (vs. +0 +3 +3)
Bard 3: +1 +3 +3 (same)
Bard 4: +1 +4 +4 (same)
Bard 5: +2 +4 +4 (vs. +1 +4 +4)
Bard 6: +2 +5 +5 (same)
Bard 7: +2 +5 +5 (same)
Bard 8: +3 +6 +6 (vs. +3 +6 +6)
Bard 9: +3 +6 +6 (same)
Bard 10: +3 +7 +7 (same)
Bard 11: +4 +7 +7 (vs. +3 +7 +7)
Bard 12: +4 +8 +8 (same)
Bard 13: +4 +8 +8 (same)
Bard 14: +5 +9 +9 (vs. +4 +9 +9)
Bard 15: +5 +9 +9 (same)
Bard 16: +5 +10 +10 (same)
Bard 17: +6 +10 +10 (vs. +5 +10 +10)
Bard 28: +6 +11 +11 (same)
Bard 19: +6 +11 +11 (same)
Bard 20: +7 +12 +12 (vs. +6 +12 +12)
Multiclass base class character:
wizard 3/cleric 2, old way: +4 +1 +6
wizard 3/cleric 2, new way: +4 +2 +5
wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 5, old way: +6 +4 +9
wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 5, new way: +6 +4 +8
rogue 1/fighter 1/barbarian 1/paladin 1, old way: +6 +2 +0
rogue 1/fighter 1/barbarian 1/paladin 1, new way: +4 +2 +0
rogue 2/fighter 2/barbarian 2/paladin 2, old way: +9 +3 +0
rogue 2/fighter 2/barbarian 2/paladin 2, new way: +8 +6 +4
rogue 5/fighter 5/barbarian 5/paladin 5, old way: +13 +7 +4
rogue 5/fighter 5/barbarian 5/paladin 5, new way: +12 +10 +8
It means recalculating all saves - but since that ship's already sailed (and it's a good sytem change, imho) with the prestige class changes, this is relatively simple - the mechanic's the same, the numbers are almost the same for single class characters, but it evens out the save discrepencies quite a bit with multiclassed characters.
That's good Jess Door, a much better compromise between Revision and Compatibility then what I was going to suggest. (use a single Good/Bad save chart and total up the class levels to get the value on each).
(rogue 5/fighter 5/barbarian 5/paladin 5 class-total: +10, +9, +6 )
In this version, you have better saving throws even if all your classes have bad saves. Should be equal, not better than a single classe character.
I'd just change it back and then include fractional saves and BAB as an optional rule, myself, giving the choice of a backwards-compatible version and a 'better' version. The current sitation, to me, is worse than either.
Yup. As I said in another thread, my order of preference is:
(1) Keep it the same as in 3.5.
(2) Use fractional saves from Unearthed Arcana.
(3) Drop the initial +2 to good saves when multiclassing.
(4) ???
(5) Jason's proposed solution.
(6) Rework the save system radically.
I'm in favor for 2 and 3.
A better (but still clunky) system would be to just cap base saving throw bonuses based on your character level. Add a column on the character advancement table listing "maximum saving throw bonus from classes." Add your base save bonuses from all classes together, as normal, but if the result is greater than your "maximum saving throw bonus from classes," use that maximum saving throw bonus, instead.
Don't forget to also have MINIMUM saving throws, because the 3.5 system doesn't just boosts the good saves, it also dwarves the poor saves.
Alternatively, I like the idea that Paizo had for the saves, but I think they just didn't start at the right plateau. I would suggest starting the progression in prestige classes with the saves a character would get when gaining his seventh level. That is:
Level / Good save / Poor save:
1 +1 +1
2 +2 +1
3 +2 +2
4 +3 +2
5 +3 +2
6 +4 +3
7 +4 +3
8 +5 +3
9 +5 +4
10 +6 +4
This way, it doesn't give such a great boost to good saves and doesn't slow down too much the poor saves. And it keeps everything simple.
So is the change to the saving throw progression of prestige classes another change made to counter bad GMing or players abusing the mechanics rather than something made to actually enhance the game? I'm noticing that more and more around here that changes are made to the mechanics with the mindset that everyone playing is a munchkin powergamer looking to abuse and break the game rather than actually enhancing the system. Or maybe I'm just bitter at the unnecessary changes to things like power attack.
Sorry for being a naysayer but it strikes me as an unnecessary change to the sytem and one that tweaks with backwards compatability making it even more annoying.
So is the change to the saving throw progression of prestige classes another change made to counter bad GMing or players abusing the mechanics rather than something made to actually enhance the game? I'm noticing that more and more around here that changes are made to the mechanics with the mindset that everyone playing is a munchkin powergamer looking to abuse and break the game rather than actually enhancing the system. Or maybe I'm just bitter at the unnecessary changes to things like power attack.
Sorry for being a naysayer but it strikes me as an unnecessary change to the sytem and one that tweaks with backwards compatability making it even more annoying.
This. Starting with racial ability adjustments, feats at every odd level, etc...
Don't like it don't play it.
I like the fact I can finally take some extra feats without killing my progression into a prestige class. My wizard can have magical aptitude and spell mastery (twice for crying out loud) while being able to still get into loremaster and (using the old rules) archmage at the same time. I don't see this as a bad thing.
|
|
Don't like it don't play it.
That would obviously apply to every possible rule, though, which would make for a somewhat boring playtest forum (Gary could just code up a bot to autoreply...). In the end, there will presumably be rules that people wish to not play, but in the meantime it makes sense that they'd argue against them and try to point out where they're wrong (and although the developers will keep their own council, as James Jacobs explained elsewhere recently, I would imagine that they want to hear it).
I don't know. I liked the system at the start and while some of the changes in the Beta had me a tad skeptical (nothing too major) I've just been noticing a lot of the reasons behind the changes have been oriented less towards enhancing the system as a whole and more towards countering the crackmonkeys who play the game not to enjoy an RPG but to try and break the mechanic. Kind of like one guy tries to bring a shoe explosive onto a plane and now everyone has to remove their shoes at the airport check points. One or two guys somehow manage to take longer deciding how to best calculate their power attack than a wizard does choosing which spell to cast and suddenly that has to be nerfed. A few bad gamers decide to front load their characters with no rhyme or reason save that they get a bonus to certain saves and a small special abilities that lets them min max and now all saves get nerfed (in a system where once you get in the upper 10 levels you need all the saves you can get). It's a design philosophy that seems to be overriding the mission statement. Though it could just be I'm bitter over a couple changes and am making a large generalization but it just seems the way system has been heading.
Of course I suppose I could always make a house rules binder. Still, this is open play test so I'm offering up my two coppers.
Don't like it don't play it.
I like the fact I can finally take some extra feats without killing my progression into a prestige class. My wizard can have magical aptitude and spell mastery (twice for crying out loud) while being able to still get into loremaster and (using the old rules) archmage at the same time. I don't see this as a bad thing.
Well, I should have elaborate on this, especially the feats, but I didn't want to hijack the thread since it is related to saving throws. So just a comment regarding my post here in regards to feats:
As PRPG stated, the base characters are made more powerful because of later 3.5 product's powercreep. Now, I can't see then, why a feat at every odd character level (mind you) makes core characters more powerful in relation to say prestige classes from 3.5 as these prestige classes also get these feats. The result is not only a powercreep in core characters but ALSO in the 3.5 characters of later books.
|
I'd just change it back and then include fractional saves and BAB as an optional rule, myself, giving the choice of a backwards-compatible version and a 'better' version. The current sitation, to me, is worse than either.
Agreed. This rule doesn't prevent a multiclass Cleric/Fighter from having a higher Fortitude save than he should, which means it has *failed* to do what it is intended to do, prevent Save creep.
The 'hole' is elsewhere. This patch no good. Worse, IMO, is that it 'fixes' half of the problem with non-Fractional saves (prestige, but not base multiclassing), but fails to 'fix' the BAB hit that multiclass characters take, making it go out of it's way to punish characters who would take Prestige Classes, by forcing them to take a hit to BAB, but *not* gain a bonus to saves. You can't call it 'balance' if it's *clearly* lopsided in one direction, can you?
Fixes that would be fair and workable;
1) Fractional Saves (and BAB!) is the obvious OGL solution that already exists.
2) Level-capped BAB/Saves/etc. (just like level-capped skill ranks). 10th level? *Base* Fort save can't be over +7, no matter how many base or prestige classes you take.