Base Save Bonus = Level, for all saves, Fort Ref & Will, for everybody.
This is one of those simple fixes that solve so many balance problems (caster/noncaster, caster/monster, weak classes/strong classes) I don't know why I didn't think of it years ago. It restores the game to a somewhat pre-3e state, where characters slowly get better at making saves as they level up, although they never get to the AD&D stage of making saves on a '2' vs equal-level opponents - eg I checked out Runelord Kazoug and he looked to be typically saving on around an '8' vs his own spell attacks.
The 'two bad' save classes get a big boost; Fighters and Rogues become playable. Casters stay powerful, since their save DCs progress as before, but save-or-suck ceases to be an automatic I-win button vs serious foes. Wizards get a nerf on save or suck, but benefit from having two poor saves raised a lot. Clerics only had one poor save, so don't benefit quite as much, but they are less reliant on save or suck anyway, so it evens out.
The only downside I've found is recalculating listed saves for monsters & NPCs takes awhile, but the game still works if I use the original saves for mooks and BSB=Level for PCs and major NPCs.
Did you mean half level?
This partially invalidates the smart tactic of picking a spell your opponent probably has a low save against, which I find detrimental to the fun of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you mean half level?
I was thinking of something similar, actually.
Characters get a base bonus of 1/2 character level (round down) to all saves and classes get a "class bonus" of +2 to their good saves. Because this "class bonus" is named, it falls under normal stacking rules; keeps a difference between good saves and poor saves (and at low levels is roughly the same), but also eliminates some of the ridiculous effects of multi-classing on save numbers (a ranger* with 2 barbarian and 2 fighter levels getting a +6 to Fort saves in place of +2 on Ref saves and +1 on Will saves).
Basically, the difference between a good save and a poor save is a feat (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes), but a "good save" character can take the same feat to maintain that advantage. The bonuses from ability scores are still significant (a cleric is still going to have the best Will save).
*-Half-orc (Toothy alternate racial trait) Str-based TWF ranger
Perhaps the game should tax multiclassing and thereby even things out by requiring one level of level 0 play in the new class.
I would be all for that...
As it currently stands there is no motivation for not multi-classing.
Perhaps the game should tax multiclassing and thereby even things out by requiring one level of level 0 play in the new class.I would be all for that...
As it currently stands there is no motivation for not multi-classing.
*spit-take*
Multiclassing in PF is nigh-universally considered a terrible idea.
Back to the topic, I like the idea in general. The divide between good saves and bad saves is too wide. Something like half-level, and give a flat +2 or 3 class bonus based on the class's current good saves. As a typed bonus, you couldn't, say, go Ftr 1/Rng 1/Barb 1 and get a +6.
Perhaps the game should tax multiclassing and thereby even things out by requiring one level of level 0 play in the new class.I would be all for that...
As it currently stands there is no motivation for not multi-classing.*spit-take*
Multiclassing in PF is nigh-universally considered a terrible idea.
Back to the topic, I like the idea in general. The divide between good saves and bad saves is too wide. Something like half-level, and give a flat +2 or 3 class bonus based on the class's current good saves. As a typed bonus, you couldn't, say, go Ftr 1/Rng 1/Barb 1 and get a +6.
If its such a terrible Idea why is it the goto "fix" for a "broken" class?
If it is such a bad idea why does the average party (at least in my experiences) have more dips than a Baskin-Robbins Super Sundae?
It's not a "fix" for a broken class. That class is just so broken that almost anything else is better than staying pure Fighter.
As far as the average party in your experiences goes, I really couldn't say. It might be a groupthink thing, or your houserules might better facilitate multiclassing than Paizo's core rules do.
If anything I have people walk away from my table because I outright ban multi-classing. I am talking in general.
IMO there are enough classes, archetypes, feats, traits, skills, and powers for each that you should be able to build the character you are looking for without dipping.
It's not a "fix" for a broken class. That class is just so broken that almost anything else is better than staying pure Fighter.
As far as the average party in your experiences goes, I really couldn't say. It might be a groupthink thing, or your houserules might better facilitate multiclassing than Paizo's core rules do.
If anything I have people walk away from my table because I outright ban multi-classing. I am talking in general.
IMO there are enough classes, archetypes, feats, traits, skills, and powers for each that you should be able to build the character you are looking for without dipping.
You eliminate a crapton of PRC's from the game with that ruling. Many PRC's require class abilities from more than one class, for example the ability to sneak attack and the ability to cast arcane spells of a sufficient level that this requirement cannot be cheesed around with Eldritch Heritage and the like. It would be particularly detrimental to a game that still uses 3.5 materials rather than strictly PF since 3.5 had more worthwhile PRC's than PF does.
As others have pointed out, I do wonder if it would also be a detrimental to the strategy of targeting enemies with spells that force them to roll their bad save. See: Reflex vs Oozes, Fortitude vs Wizards, etc. That's a bit of strategy that I do enjoy in the games. It's also, if you carry the rule over to racial HD (because ultimately that's what classes are, HD with abilities), then you'd be removing built-in weaknesses to certain creatures.
I would also point out that if you're making this change universal across all classes, then you're not really changing balance. While it would certainly make it harder for a wizard to target an enemy's bad saves. Why be a fighter with a +20 to all my saves, when I can be a wizard with +20 to all my saves? It also wouldn't be addressing the other problem/reason for caster power: Spells that don't require saving throws.
I.E. "Oh no, my debuff spell didn't cripple the fighter. Good thing his saving throws don't prevent me from teleporting away to keep the fight on my terms."
IMO there are enough classes, archetypes, feats, traits, skills, and powers for each that you should be able to build the character you are looking for without dipping.
I want to be have an animal companion and also use sneak attack.
I want to cast from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and use sneak attack.I want to be a Druid who uses rage powers
As far as I'm aware, all 3 of those concepts, that I just came up with off the top of my head, can't be accomplished without multiclassing.
I want to be have an animal companion and also use sneak attack.
I want to cast from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and use sneak attack.
I want to be a Druid who uses rage powersAs far as I'm aware, all 3 of those concepts, that I just came up with off the top of my head, can't be accomplished without multiclassing.
Carnivalist Rogue gets really close to animal companion + sneak attack
It's not a "fix" for a broken class. That class is just so broken that almost anything else is better than staying pure Fighter.
As far as the average party in your experiences goes, I really couldn't say. It might be a groupthink thing, or your houserules might better facilitate multiclassing than Paizo's core rules do.
If anything I have people walk away from my table because I outright ban multi-classing. I am talking in general.
IMO there are enough classes, archetypes, feats, traits, skills, and powers for each that you should be able to build the character you are looking for without dipping.
You eliminate a crapton of PRC's from the game with that ruling. Many PRC's require class abilities from more than one class, for example the ability to sneak attack and the ability to cast arcane spells of a sufficient level that this requirement cannot be cheesed around with Eldritch Heritage and the like. It would be particularly detrimental to a game that still uses 3.5 materials rather than strictly PF since 3.5 had more worthwhile PRC's than PF does.
That is another Ban that gets a lot of disgust from folks...
PF material only at my table. I never purchased any 3.0 or 3.5 product since I had no intention of EVER GMing the system after the multiple bad experiences when they were first released. I gave each release a full year and multiple GMs to convince me the system was worth purchase. The attitudes of the new hobbyists toward us old hands did their best to drive me away from the hobby completely. (Thankfully there were other games with less pompous overblown @$$hats for fans to keep me entertained during the "blight").It took a friend cajoling me for 6 months to give PF a shot when it was released. Thankfully the experiences with it and the hobbyists surrounding it were much better.
So that brings us up to today.
But I digress...
No PRCs? not going to shed a tear over that. Especially since most have found their way into either a full class or archetype and the ones have have not? would have, in all likely hood, gotten banned in my settings anyway.
Carnivalist Rogue gets really close to animal companion + sneak attack
I want to be have an animal companion and also use sneak attack.
I want to cast from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and use sneak attack.
I want to be a Druid who uses rage powersAs far as I'm aware, all 3 of those concepts, that I just came up with off the top of my head, can't be accomplished without multiclassing.
Ooh? Really. Sounds cool. I'll check that. *checks*
No it doesn't. It just gives large bonuses to handle animal on small or tiny creatures, and provides a familiar. Which are handy, btw. They're just not similar enough to an animal companion for me.
Adding to the list: Someone who is both a divine and arcane caster.
Not to be all "Haha, I got the last word in, so now I'm ending the conversation," but I don't want to drive this thread further off topic, so I'm ending the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Carnivalist Rogue gets really close to animal companion + sneak attack
I want to be have an animal companion and also use sneak attack.
I want to cast from the sorcerer/wizard spell list and use sneak attack.
I want to be a Druid who uses rage powersAs far as I'm aware, all 3 of those concepts, that I just came up with off the top of my head, can't be accomplished without multiclassing.
Ooh? Really. Sounds cool. I'll check that. *checks*
No it doesn't. It just gives large bonuses to handle animal on small or tiny creatures, and provides a familiar. Which are handy, btw. They're just not similar enough to an animal companion for me.
Adding to the list: Someone who is both a divine and arcane caster.
Not to be all "Haha, I got the last word in, so now I'm ending the conversation," but I don't want to drive this thread further off topic, so I'm ending the conversation.
Well, I said it gets close. . . it gives you a companion animal (using advancement rules for a familiar) and sneak attack, but yes, if you want to have an animal companion advancing as an animal companion and sneak attack you would need rogue levels and levels in another class.
There could eventually be either base classes or archetypes to fill those niches, but until the multi-classing is the way to go.
There are other concepts (like Rage-Prophet) where instead of a base class blending the two there are PrCs specifically for those concepts--
I have no idea why some people are so hostile to multi-classing and PrCs, it just expands the choices characters have so they can okay WHAT they want not "something kinda like what" they want.
Did you mean half level?
Heh heh. No. Most casters can advance their better spell DCs faster than 1/2 levels. The idea is that high level characters should have a better than even chance to save, in practice it looks to work out around 2/3.
This partially invalidates the smart tactic of picking a spell your opponent probably has a low save against, which I find detrimental to the fun of the game.
You'll often find a 6 or 8 point difference betweeg eg Will and Fort, even with this house rule. It's just not so enormous a difference as before. If you mean it's less fun to often have your spells saved against, yeah I can see that. OTOH there are plenty of other things for casters to do. But it will definitely tend to reduce caster dominance, PC and NPC. It's not for groups that prefer a caster-dominant campaign, it's more for a pre-3e feel for those who like that.
I would also point out that if you're making this change universal across all classes, then you're not really changing balance. While it would certainly make it harder for a wizard to target an enemy's bad saves. Why be a fighter with a +20 to all my saves, when I can be a wizard with +20 to all my saves? It also wouldn't be addressing the other problem/reason for caster power: Spells that don't require saving throws.I.E. "Oh no, my debuff spell didn't cripple the fighter. Good thing his saving throws don't prevent me from teleporting away to keep the fight on my terms."
It definitely does change balance; it makes hitting things with weapons & touch attack no-save spells (etc) relatively more powerful. It improves survivability for everyone, but this has a disproportionate effect on the Fighter types as they are the least-survivable and IME most likely to be targeted. It's not intended to make the Fighter equal to the Wizard; it's intended to give the Fighter a shot at surviving round 1. 'Wizard teleports away' definitely beats 'wizard baneful polymorphs me into frog'.
It definitely does change balance; it makes hitting things with weapons & touch attack no-save spells (etc) relatively more powerful. It improves survivability for everyone, but this has a disproportionate effect on the Fighter types as they are the least-survivable and IME most likely to be targeted. It's not intended to make the Fighter equal to the Wizard; it's intended to give the Fighter a shot at surviving round 1. 'Wizard teleports away' definitely beats 'wizard baneful polymorphs me into frog'.
I would also point out that if you're making this change universal across all classes, then you're not really changing balance. While it would certainly make it harder for a wizard to target an enemy's bad saves. Why be a fighter with a +20 to all my saves, when I can be a wizard with +20 to all my saves? It also wouldn't be addressing the other problem/reason for caster power: Spells that don't require saving throws.I.E. "Oh no, my debuff spell didn't cripple the fighter. Good thing his saving throws don't prevent me from teleporting away to keep the fight on my terms."
Fighters don't fail Fort Saves. . .at the minimum level that Baleful Polymorph could be cast the Fighter has +6 against it assuming he used Con as a dump stat (much less likely).
Whereas the Wizard has only +3 versus that same spell. . .(or the fighter versus a will or reflex save has only +3).
Giving everyone the same saves makes the game marginally more survivable, but it also takes out the entire layer of the game where you choose the right spell or effect to attack the right foe. . .
You could make the game more survivable for everyone if you made AC advance with level as well. . .
So what's the goal of this rule? Nerfing Wizards? Making the game more survivable? Further hindering multi-classing?
You can still choose the right effect vs the right target. If a guy dumps DEX you can have an upwards of 40-50% more chance of hitting him with a spell with a reflex save than that guy who focuses on DEX. It's just not 100% more or 100% less.
This alleviates the problem that at high levels saves are binary auto-pass or auto-lose things depending if they are god or bad saves of the target, but still retain some saves being worse than others because they are modified by stats.
That works for DMs, but not players. . . you can easily identify whether the guy is swinging a sword or casting spells and choose Will or Fort saves, its not so easy to identify which of the two sword guys put fewer points in Wisdom?
So what's the goal of this rule? Nerfing Wizards? Making the game more survivable? Further hindering multi-classing?
By 'hindering multi-classing' you mean losing the save bonuses from 1 level dip? Yes, I'm happy to lose that.
The aim is to go back more towards pre-3e D&D at higher levels: Wizards were the most powerful class because of the great flexibility of their spells, but they were unlikely to defeat a high level Fighter or Thief with a single Polymorph, Charm Person etc type save-or-screwed spell. The Wizards' geometric spell power increase (more spells, more powerful spell levels, higher caster level boosting existing spells) was tempered somewhat by the advancing saves of all classes, which gave everyone an increasing robustness. 3e changed it around so that IME it's actually harder to save vs a Wizard of equivalent level as you go up levels. This fixes that issue, without any major nerfing of primary casters.
If you think it's a good thing that it's actually harder to save vs a Wizard of equivalent level as you go up levels, then you won't want to use this house rule.
You could make the game more survivable for everyone if you made AC advance with level as well. . .
You could, but IME there is not a general balance issue around to-hit numbers vs AC numbers, since increase in likelihood of to-hit tends to be balanced by more hp relative to damage. Whereas attacks that require a save and bypass hp have no such balance.
Also, monsters in 3e/PF get arbitrarily huge Natural Armour bonuses to keep their AC up, and NPCs & PCs get magic items. IME it pretty much work out, though Fighter types do tend to be overly vulnerable to melee brute monsters of equivalent CR.
Dragonchess - I see that two levels each of fighter and barbarian add up to +6 Fort; how is that "in place of" +2 Ref +1 Will? As I see it, four previous levels of Ranger instead of 2 Fighter and 2 Barbarian bring +4 Fort +4 ref +1 Will, so the character who took the two dips lost +4 Ref and +1 Will in exchange for a gain of +2 Fort.
You compare the saves of a ranger X and a ranger (X - 4); you don't count the starting save bonus at 1st level ranger. Basically, a ranger 6/barbarian 2/fighter 2 has Fort +11, Ref +5, Will +2 while a ranger 10 has Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +3. I guess I should have said "+4 Fort in place of +2 Ref and +1 Will."
Anyway, the Fort save pumping was just to highlight the way the system currently works. In most cases, that was probably not even much of a consideration (if at all) for the character; the addition of rage Str-boosting and extra feats would have been the main points for the multi-classing.
With the "1/2 character level, plus class bonus," both the ranger 6/barbarian 2/fighter 2 and the ranger 10 would both have the same saves: Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +5 (before ability score bonuses and possible feat or item boosts). It simply narrows the range between good saves and poor saves, as well as simplifying how save bonus are calculated. In play, good saves are still tough (but doable) to target, while poor saves are less of an "(almost) auto-fail the saving throw."
As a side note, I never really liked how characters of the same character level could have such widely variable base saves in 3.x, even before including ability score modifiers. Multi-classing and prestige classes make calculating all of that a big pain.
You could make the game more survivable for everyone if you made AC advance with level as well. . .
You could, but IME there is not a general balance issue around to-hit numbers vs AC numbers, since increase in likelihood of to-hit tends to be balanced by more hp relative to damage. Whereas attacks that require a save and bypass hp have no such balance.
Also, monsters in 3e/PF get arbitrarily huge Natural Armour bonuses to keep their AC up, and NPCs & PCs get magic items. IME it pretty much work out, though Fighter types do tend to be overly vulnerable to melee brute monsters of equivalent CR.
I've never particularly found that to be the case. . . and ACs for monster sometimes are high, but I find that martials tend to be in the situation where they need to roll a 6 or higher against most monsters even, and against NPCs they simply need to roll a "not 1"
As far as getting rid of base save disparity. . . well, some systems *cough next cough* simply abandoned any difference of saves at all.
As far as using this to equalize things/make them more like they were in previous editions-- high level fighters didn't have the best saves in everything, they were strong against breath weapons and weak against spells, while if I remember correctly cleric was strong against PPD-- it was a much less intuitive system than Fort/Ref/Will, and it still had each class better/worse at different ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify: It's not the variation I was objecting to, but how wide that variation is. You can, as shown above, have a swing of as much as +9 (45% on a d20) or more between your best save and your worst save before ability modifiers. Counting ability modifiers, magic items, and other boosts (on both sides), that's usually the difference between "don't bother targeting" and "I need to get lucky to make the save."
To clarify: It's not the variation I was objecting to, but how wide that variation is. You can, as shown above, have a swing of as much as +9 (45% on a d20) or more between your best save and your worst save before ability modifiers. Counting ability modifiers, magic items, and other boosts (on both sides), that's usually the difference between "don't bother targeting" and "I need to get lucky to make the save."
And I agree with this completely.
To clarify: It's not the variation I was objecting to, but how wide that variation is. You can, as shown above, have a swing of as much as +9 (45% on a d20) or more between your best save and your worst save before ability modifiers. Counting ability modifiers, magic items, and other boosts (on both sides), that's usually the difference between "don't bother targeting" and "I need to get lucky to make the save."And I agree with this completely.
The risk is either putting all saves for everyone to "don't bother targeting" or making it so the bonuses basically just cancel out and making it so you should just eliminate the bonus altogether.
Targetting a particular save should be an assist, not an autowin. That's the point. An expected difference of 4, for example, I think would fit about right.
Targetting a particular save should be an assist, not an autowin. That's the point. An expected difference of 4, for example, I think would fit about right.
At what level? 1st? 10th? 20th?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The risk is either putting all saves for everyone to "don't bother targeting" or making it so the bonuses basically just cancel out and making it so you should just eliminate the bonus altogether.
Nope. A cleric is still going to be weaker against Ref saves than Will saves (unless the player makes a cleric with significantly higher Dex than Wis for some reason), a fighter is still likely to be weakest against Will saves (as Dex and Con have more direct benefit to a combatant), etc. A character's weak save(s) is just less of an "I win" button, because it scales more closely with save DCs (baseline ~50% success chance against an equal-character level effect, before ability score and other modifiers); ability score and other modifiers are still extremely important.
|
Did you mean half level?I was thinking of something similar, actually.
Characters get a base bonus of 1/2 character level (round down) to all saves and classes get a "class bonus" of +2 to their good saves. Because this "class bonus" is named, it falls under normal stacking rules; keeps a difference between good saves and poor saves (and at low levels is roughly the same), but also eliminates some of the ridiculous effects of multi-classing on save numbers (a ranger* with 2 barbarian and 2 fighter levels getting a +6 to Fort saves in place of +2 on Ref saves and +1 on Will saves).
Basically, the difference between a good save and a poor save is a feat (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes), but a "good save" character can take the same feat to maintain that advantage. The bonuses from ability scores are still significant (a cleric is still going to have the best Will save).
*-Half-orc (Toothy alternate racial trait) Str-based TWF ranger
Would the monk gain a +1 Class bonus to all three saves?
Would the monk gain a +1 Class bonus to all three saves?Did you mean half level?I was thinking of something similar, actually.
Characters get a base bonus of 1/2 character level (round down) to all saves and classes get a "class bonus" of +2 to their good saves. Because this "class bonus" is named, it falls under normal stacking rules; keeps a difference between good saves and poor saves (and at low levels is roughly the same), but also eliminates some of the ridiculous effects of multi-classing on save numbers (a ranger* with 2 barbarian and 2 fighter levels getting a +6 to Fort saves in place of +2 on Ref saves and +1 on Will saves).
Basically, the difference between a good save and a poor save is a feat (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes), but a "good save" character can take the same feat to maintain that advantage. The bonuses from ability scores are still significant (a cleric is still going to have the best Will save).
*-Half-orc (Toothy alternate racial trait) Str-based TWF ranger
I believe they are suggesting all classes get +1/level to all saves.
+Level to all saves is way way too much. That's about what I aim for, after other bonuses.
+1/2 level with +2 class is virtually identical (for a single class) to the current system (1 point difference every 6 levels). If you're worried about multiclass falling behind on the low saves, just use fractional save bonuses (in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, although strangely not on d20srd.org).
We use factional rules.
Weak BaB add +1/2
Med BaB add +3/4
Strong BaB add +1
add total of all levels drop any fractions
Saves
add +1/2 to Strong save per level and + 1/3 to for weak save per level or Hit dice
Total...then add +2 once per save if it a strong save. (even if it Prestige class or racial hit dice)
Example Cleric 1/ fighter 1 has base Fort save of +3
Example
Wizard 1/ Rouge 2/ Fighter 1
By the Core rule this PC has
BaB + 2 Fort save +2 Reflex +3 Will of +2
Using fractional rules
BaB +3 Fort +3 Reflex +3 Will +3
Remember with out the threat of failure the reward of successes pointless
Who cares if you made a fort save DC 13 if you only need to roll a 2 or better?
Who cares if you hit AC 9 touch AC with a +10 to hit.
The +2 bonus a good base for first level is like +3 class skill bonus once you get it you can not get it again.
If you want to use something similar to the approach of 4E defenses, all characters would have a base save of 1/2 character level plus appropriate ability score modifier. To that total, add the base save bonus that the character's class gets at 1st level. If the character is multi-classed, do not combine multiple class bonuses -- just use the best one available. That approach should tighten up the saving throw progressions considerably without seriously disturbing class balance (as good saves are unchanged, poor saves increase by +3 by 20th level, and multiclassed saves are less extreme).
Unfortunately, using a similar approach for AC and attack bonuses would require too much reworking of the overall system to be practical.
Perhaps the game should tax multiclassing and thereby even things out by requiring one level of level 0 play in the new class.I would be all for that...
As it currently stands there is no motivation for not multi-classing.*spit-take*
Multiclassing in PF is nigh-universally considered a terrible idea.
There's a difference between true multi-classing and 'dipping'... I can't remember the last time I saw a true multi-class, but I see dips at least as often as I see full class progressions, and they make for some very strong characters especially once you take into account the relative rarity of level 17+ play.
The way I see it saves are increased mostly by feats which can at best add +2, and increasing ability scores. Spell DCs can be increased with ability scores and a number of assorted effects. So at it's base 1/2 level as the base bad save (with +2 class bonus on good saves) is pretty sound.
But the consequence is that 2/3 casters have fewer targets. Also effects like Stunning fist become even less useful. This includes saves from weapons, poisons and other effects that require a save and lower level spells that you want to remain viable. Under normal circumstances you'd just tactically target bad saves with these effects.
But the fact remains that the difference between a good and bad save can be enormous to the point that challenging a character with a good save means that the characters with bad saves automatically fail, especially since the ones more likely to be delivering these saves are SAD casters.
Perhaps the solution is for feats that improve saves to have follow up feats that actually cause a bad save to become a good save.