Anyone ever consider it?
Spread out over the 32 core, base, alternate, and hybrid classes are 15 with only 1 good save.
Some, like the fighter or rogue, feel like they have one because they are original classes when this all got started and are out of date now.
Others, like witch or oracle, feel like they just emulate whatever core class they are closest too.
and the others, like arcanist or bloodrager, feel like they just cribbed from a parent class.
I guess I am just curious as to what makes the distinction between a 1 good save class and a 2 good save class.
I am also curious about the ramifications of giving all 15 solo-saves classes a secondary good save.
Anyway, this is just a thought that popped into my head - I haven't done any math or serious consideration so if you have any arguments for or against the idea, I am all ears.
Just over half have two good saves hardly sets a standard. Yes, it sometimes sucks when your character is only good at one saving throw, but most of those 1-save classes were built that way for flavor reason.
What would you give a wizard as his 2nd good save? Its not so clear, and isn't a wizard powerful enough already? What about a fighter? People wouldn't agree on which one makes the most sense. I'll admit that my oracle feels like he should have a good Fortitude saving throw, but if the developers had done so, he would likely have had to give up some class feature.
Oracle felt like a pretty conscious decision. It was mostly cleric, which should have netted it a good fortitude save, under your reasoning.
As for house-ruling? I don't see how it will break anything, but as mentioned above, some classes don't immediately suggest a good secondary save. And which good save would the monk lose?
Monk's already losing their good Will in Unchained.
I think it's okay for some classes, particularly strong ones like 9-level arcane spellcasters and strong gish classes. One-save is a good conscious choice to give a little weakness to a class in favor of making them strong elsewhere.
However, I do agree that two-saves should be standard for full BAB classes. At high levels, a weak save results in an almost instant failure. Unlike gishes and full spellcasters, full BAB classes often don't have an answer for the powerful effects you can expect from a high level monster.
I prefer 3 good saves for non-casters, 2 good saves for partial spellcasters and 1 good save (Will) for full casters. Then throw the Enchanters and Illusionists a bone and tone down the mind-affecting immunity.
I prefer 3 good saves for non-casters, 2 good saves for partial spellcasters and 1 good save (Will) for full casters. Then throw the Enchanters and Illusionists a bone and tone down the mind-affecting immunity.
That'd be taking a save from the druid and the cleric. You are probably cool with that though.
More troublesome is the barbarian with 3 good saves. That would be insane.
Yes, I'm cool with that.
Well, that gives people a reason to be legit afraid of barbarians. :P
Another rule you can add is that when a creature has less than 3 in Int, Wis or Cha, they get bad saves in Will regardless of what their class/creature type says, so that we can differentiate from, say, intelligent Undead (high Will) and mindless Undead (low Will). It also neatly explains bad Will for Animals, Oozes, Vermin, Constructs and so on.
I prefer 3 good saves for non-casters, 2 good saves for partial spellcasters and 1 good save (Will) for full casters. Then throw the Enchanters and Illusionists a bone and tone down the mind-affecting immunity.That'd be taking a save from the druid and the cleric. You are probably cool with that though.
More troublesome is the barbarian with 3 good saves. That would be insane.
Barbarians have all good saves anyways.
Barbarians have all good saves anyways.I prefer 3 good saves for non-casters, 2 good saves for partial spellcasters and 1 good save (Will) for full casters. Then throw the Enchanters and Illusionists a bone and tone down the mind-affecting immunity.That'd be taking a save from the druid and the cleric. You are probably cool with that though.
More troublesome is the barbarian with 3 good saves. That would be insane.
at least human superstitious barbarians do. Of course, many barbarians end up with beast totem and superstition anyways because of how powerful they are. But it does such to be shoehorned into needing specific rage powers just to shore up a glaring weakness like saves.
Trailblazer had that as one of its core ideas.
Really? I had no idea and I use their iterative attack rules and everything!
off to buy a copy then...
Legend likewise has each class with two good saves (and some classes get to choose, ex. all Rogues have good Reflex, but you can also be a thuggish rogue with good Fort, or a wily rogue with good Will).
|
I don't know about all classes, but a damn good number (specifically classes with only a good Fort or Reflex save) absolutely deserve to have two good saves.
The poor Fighter has no reason not to have a second decent save - saves are pretty much his bane. All his potency at hitting things is moot when it's always being used to make him murder his party members. And having to stack Will-save boosting stuff through the roof just to combat this isn't really fun or engaging.
I house-ruled a while ago that Fighter, Cavalier and Rogue could choose a 2nd good save. Didn't give more save to the Barbarian, since he has access to built in mechanics that increases his saves (Rage, Superstition, etc).
I don't think that giving 2 good save to full arcane casters is a good idea (they are already so powerful...I see their poor saves as that one drawback that can balance it a little bit). Oracle could get a second good save as the cleric, but it doesn't seem like something necessary, while buffing martial class was a coherent move for the purpose of game balance.