I want to replace the class based saves for a variety of reasons:
1) To have the various saving throw bonuses of characters less far apart and prevent automatic success and failures for level appropriate threats.
2) I want to discourage multi-classing for dip benefits, not multi-classing in general
3) I see no reason to maintain it, ability scores and potential feats do a well enough job to explain why someone is more likely to succeed or not
4) I wish to equalize the classes a bit more, it seems that the weaker classes often have the weakest saves as well (rogue, fighter), or would typically lack the ability scores to boost saves (wizard, sorcerer), while other classes with already strong saves have them enhanced even further with high ability modifiers (cleric, druid, paladin)
5) I like the correlation with a creature's / character's deductible traits having a relation with his strong saves rather than meta gaming
6) it's meant for a relatively low magic campaign and the characters might miss out on the assumed bonuses inherent in magical items, so slightly increasing the saves overall might be a good thing.
The basics:
The base save will be a bonus of 1/2 your level in every category modified for ability modifiers.
At level 5, 10 and 15 you can pick to get a +1 bonus on one of the various saves, at level 10 and 15 you can pick a save you did not choose to increase before, your other previously chosen increases go up +1 as well.
At level 20 they all go up by an additional +1.
So at level 5 you can choose to increase fortitude, at level 10 you pick reflex and increase your fortitude up by +1 as well. Your saves are now +2 fortitude, +1 reflex. At level 15 your will save gets +1 and the other saves go up +1 as well. Your saves are +3 fortitude, +2 reflex and +1 will.
When your fortitude goes up by +1 you also get a bonus of 5 hit points per increase.
When your reflex save goes up by +1 you also get a +1 bonus on initiative checks per increase.
When your will saves go up you get a +1 bonus on concentration checks per increase. *
* caster level / concentration ranks will be determined by stacking together the caster levels and half of the non-caster levels. Concentration will use charisma by default unless stated otherwise.
(still working on some feats / alternative uses for concentration for the magically challenged)
just to adress reason number 2.
The Unchained rules brings up this problem with multiclassing and explains why it exists with "Fractional Base Bonuses". You could implement this system to avoid heavy dipping at your table.
(scroll down for the Other Class & Advancement Variant Rules section.
Base attack bonuses and base save bonuses in the core rules progress at a fractional rate, but those fractions are eliminated because of rounding; it doesn't make sense to distinguish a base attack bonus of +6-1/2 from a base attack bonus of +6 when a character with either bonus would hit AC 17 on a roll of 11 and miss on a 10. For ease of reference, the values in the class tables are rounded this way since it never makes a difference for single-class characters. However, for multiclass characters, this rounding often results in a base attack bonus that's too low, as well as base save bonuses that are imbalanced. The following variant results in more accurate base bonuses for multiclass characters, based on the formulas behind the class progression tables rather than on the tables themselves.
For example, a character who's a 1st-level wizard and a 1st-level rogue has a base attack bonus (BAB) of +0 from each class, resulting in a total BAB of +0—worse than a 2nd-level wizard or 2nd-level rogue. But that's only because each fraction was rounded down to 0 before adding them together; the character theoretically has a BAB of +3/4 from her rogue level and +1/2 from her wizard level. If the rounding was done after adding the fractional values together rather than before, the character would have a BAB of +1 (rounded down from +1-1/4)—the same as a 2nd-level wizard or rogue.
For classes with a d8 Hit Die, their BAB increases by 3/4 per level. For classes with a d10 or d12 Hit Die, their BAB increases by 1 per level (so it's not necessary to round the BAB for these classes). A multiclass character's base attack bonus will only ever improve using this variant.
For example, a character who's a 2nd-level rogue and a 9th-level wizard would have a BAB of +5 in the core rules: +1 from her rogue levels and +4 from her wizard levels. Using the fractional system, that character's BAB would be +6, with +1-1/2 from her rogue levels and +4-1/2 from her wizard levels—enough for her to gain a second attack at a +1 bonus.
When calculating each saving throw bonus, first determine whether each class you have levels in grants a good or poor saving throw progression for that type of save. To tell whether a class has a good or poor save progression for a particular saving throw, look at the 1st-level saving throw bonus it receives for that save in the core rules. If the bonus is +2, the class has a good save progression for that type of save. If it's +0, the class has a poor save progression for that type of save. Next, for each class, find the value in Table: Fractional Bonuses by Level corresponding to your level in that class and whether the saving throw progression is good or poor. Add the values from all your classes; if you have a good saving throw progression from at least one class, add 2 to the total (this is a one-time increase and doesn't stack).
For example, in a standard game, a character who's a 5th-level cleric and a 2nd-level fighter would have a Fortitude base save bonus of +7, a Reflex base save bonus of +1, and a Will base save bonus of +4. In this variant, the same character would have a Fortitude base save bonus of +5 (rounded down from +5-1/2), a Reflex base save bonus of +2 (rounded down from +2-1/3), and a Will base save bonus of +5 (rounded down from +5-1/6).
In the core Pathfinder rules, prestige classes advance at the same rate as base classes but have different class bonuses. These adjusted bonuses were meant to compensate for the leftover fractions from the character's base classes, since the only way to gain a prestige class is via multiclassing—taking levels in both your original class and the prestige class—or racial Hit Dice. Because fractional base bonuses already account for those fractions, instead use the base save bonuses from Table: Fractional Bonuses by Level just as you would for any other class. To tell whether a prestige class has a good or poor save progression for a saving throw, look at the 1st-level saving throw bonuses it receives for that save. If the bonus is +1, it has a good save progression. If it's +0, it has a poor save progression.
Saving throws will be pretty low at low level. Its a small change for classes with one good save but noticable for those with two. What happens to the monk, who is "supposed" to be known for strong saving throws?
I want to replace the class based saves for a variety of reasons:
1) To have the various saving throw bonuses of characters less far apart and prevent automatic success and failures for level appropriate threats.
2) I want to discourage multi-classing for dip benefits, not multi-classing in general
3) I see no reason to maintain it, ability scores and potential feats do a well enough job to explain why someone is more likely to succeed or not
4) I wish to equalize the classes a bit more, it seems that the weaker classes often have the weakest saves as well (rogue, fighter), or would typically lack the ability scores to boost saves (wizard, sorcerer), while other classes with already strong saves have them enhanced even further with high ability modifiers (cleric, druid, paladin)
5) I like the correlation with a creature's / character's deductible traits having a relation with his strong saves rather than meta gaming
6) it's meant for a relatively low magic campaign and the characters might miss out on the assumed bonuses inherent in magical items, so slightly increasing the saves overall might be a good thing.
The basics:
The base save will be a bonus of 1/2 your level in every category modified for ability modifiers.
At level 5, 10 and 15 you can pick to get a +1 bonus on one of the various saves, at level 10 and 15 you can pick a save you did not choose to increase before, your other previously chosen increases go up +1 as well.
At level 20 they all go up by an additional +1.So at level 5 you can choose to increase fortitude, at level 10 you pick reflex and increase your fortitude up by +1 as well. Your saves are now +2 fortitude, +1 reflex. At level 15 your will save gets +1 and the other saves go up +1 as well. Your saves are +3 fortitude, +2 reflex and +1 will.
When your fortitude goes up by +1 you also get a bonus of 5 hit points per increase.
When your reflex save goes up by +1 you also get a +1 bonus on initiative checks per increase.
When your...
Nice. Pretty well thought out. I have been considering adopting the Star Wars Saga Edition saves, but with the 1/2 level base as you've done. Classes get a Class bonus to various save categories. So, for instance, I'd give Fighters +2 Fort, and +1 Ref. Rogues probably +1 Fort, and +2 Ref. Clerics would have only +1 to Fort and +2 to Will, etc. These Class bonuses overlap, but do not stack.
The thing that is missing is Prestige Class boosts to saves, in PF we pretty much don't use them anymore with the myriad archetypes and class powers all the way to 20. In Saga, it is expected that you'll Prestige. In that system, the PrC gave larger Class bonuses to saves, again not stacking but overlapping. This buffed out your saves a bit at high level.
I do like your bonus choice progression. If you took Ciaran's concern to heart, you could institute a Saga type base set, and allow choices at later levels. Or boost all saves every so many levels. Just thoughts.
EDIT: Just occurred to me, the smoothest way to address that concern, would be to simply start your bonus choice progression at 1st level instead.
I came up with something very similar for mostly the same reasons.
However, I'm not sure how I feel about 5). Do these bonuses replace the regular bonuses for high ability scores or are they in addition to those? Do only base save increases grant bonuses?
And I agree with Ciaran Barnes. Maybe it could work differently for different classes:
monk gains a bonus at 1,4,8,12,16;
wizard gains a bonus at 1,6,12,18;
ranger gains a bonus at 1,5,10,15.
If you want to remove the cloak of resistance from the game, give everyone a 3/4 base save. This is the equivalent of gaining the cloak bonus built into the base.
My thoughts were to give people a "class save bonus" of +2 (which brings the bonus back to high saves level), based on background choice (one could be a soldier that has a class save of Fortitude and Reflex, but then actually starts the game having developed his sorcerer powers, etc).
Class saves bonus won't stack, just like class skills bonus.
just to adress reason number 2.
The Unchained rules brings up this problem with multiclassing and explains why it exists with "Fractional Base Bonuses". You could implement this system to avoid heavy dipping at your table.
(scroll down for the Other Class & Advancement Variant Rules section.
** spoiler omitted **...
that's good, I am already using fractional BAB. I just want to smooth out saves as well.
Saving throws will be pretty low at low level. Its a small change for classes with one good save but noticable for those with two. What happens to the monk, who is "supposed" to be known for strong saving throws?
I had thought about it since before unchained monk and never quite found it satisfactory, but with the unchained monk I do not see this as a problem.
@can't find the path
I did consider starting the bonus progression at 1. As it is the save progression doesn't eclipse classes with two good saves till level 10 in the old system. Before that they are a bit more vulnerable, discounting added benefits of your choice.
A character with only a single good save will start reaping the benefits from level 5 onwards, discounting the added benefits.
It doesn't seem too terrible, but I might change it a little:
Pick a primary save at level 1:
the benefits are the same except that fortitude adds a +1 hit point bonus every level the character advances.
A Secondary save is picked at level 6:
The same benefits but hit points gain does not work retroactively over the levels you already gained. (if fortitude is picked), increases other save increase as normal.
A third save bonus is granted at level 11:
Like the level 6 increase for fortitude.
At level 16 all saves and benefits are increased another step, except fortitude which simply keeps granting a hit point every level of course.
* The saga system is nice as well, I wasn't familiar with it, only thing I do not like is that it still rewards multi-classing into different roles a bit more, definitely better than the current system. But I still like to divorce saves from classes, it gives a little more freedom to character creation and can be used to shore up weaknesses or focus on a single good save a bit more.
I came up with something very similar for mostly the same reasons.
However, I'm not sure how I feel about 5). Do these bonuses replace the regular bonuses for high ability scores or are they in addition to those? Do only base save increases grant bonuses?
And I agree with Ciaran Barnes. Maybe it could work differently for different classes:
monk gains a bonus at 1,4,8,12,16;
wizard gains a bonus at 1,6,12,18;
ranger gains a bonus at 1,5,10,15.
I think it is possible to marry additional abilities to increase saves into classes if you feel they are short handed in that department, I always felt it was fairly appropriate to give wizards a bonus versus spells for example.
A classic monk is a very defensive class, originally I came up with the monk being able to make a reroll for saves by using a ki point from his pool. I am not going to use that for the unchained monk though, I do not think it will come up short compaed to other martials.
Why do you think it is a good idea to put the bonuses at different levels for different classes ?
I think it is a good idea to shorten the gap between strong and weak saves, but a revised system should still reflect the differences between individual classes. But sure, conditional bonuses work fine as well.
One of the major problems with your system is that characters (and villains using class levels) will essentially have nearly identical saves across the board. That means that players and npcs will be unable to target weak saves with spell effects (so you are essentially nerfing spell combat by making it difficult to exploit weaknesses/avoid strengths). Everyone knows not to cast spells with will saves on clerics because they have high will, but bad reflex. You are removing that element of the game almost entirely. Other things like traps or monster abilities will also feel less special because no class will have an advantage against that thing or a weakness to it.
Honestly, base saves are there for a reason. That said, I think some variety and re-balancing along say, 2e-like lines could be cool.
Going back to your main reasons...
1. What could be an auto success against one effect could be a very difficult roll against a different effect targeting your bad save in the current system. It's not nearly as clear cut as you present it.
2. Multiclassing is already lackluster, discouraging dips is discouraging even remote ideas of maybe multiclassing
3. Classes are balanced around base saves (albeit sometimes not well, but still). This kind of system is essentially unfair to say, the monk, which one of its selling points is all good saves
4. You could do this by rewarding weaker classes directly, not changing game fundamentals in ways that could produce large unforseen consequences.
5. Is that not the case already? The fighter is likely to have great fortitude because his class is already naturally inclined to invest in CON. The Cleric will have even better will saves because the class encourages WIS. Many if not most classes are like that - they reward synergy.
6. Again with point 4, you could just give a blanket +1 or +2 instead of complicated changes. Also part of the reward of low magic is higher risk.
It is a fundamental shift in how gameplay works.
You basically have to ask yourself the question: Do you want saves numbers to mean something at higher levels, or do you want to have saves as an automatic and binary thing, where the roll is perfunctory (barring outlier rolls).
Grant the same +2 bonuses a character class gets at 1st level, but only to his or her first class. Additional +2s from multiclassing are not gained.
Honestly, base saves are there for a reason. That said, I think some variety and re-balancing along say, 2e-like lines could be cool.
Going back to your main reasons...
1. What could be an auto success against one effect could be a very difficult roll against a different effect targeting your bad save in the current system. It's not nearly as clear cut as you present it.
2. Multiclassing is already lackluster, discouraging dips is discouraging even remote ideas of maybe multiclassing
3. Classes are balanced around base saves (albeit sometimes not well, but still). This kind of system is essentially unfair to say, the monk, which one of its selling points is all good saves
4. You could do this by rewarding weaker classes directly, not changing game fundamentals in ways that could produce large unforseen consequences.
5. Is that not the case already? The fighter is likely to have great fortitude because his class is already naturally inclined to invest in CON. The Cleric will have even better will saves because the class encourages WIS. Many if not most classes are like that - they reward synergy.
6. Again with point 4, you could just give a blanket +1 or +2 instead of complicated changes. Also part of the reward of low magic is higher risk.
Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated. In short my feedback to your feedback:
1) well yes, but I don't think it should be like that. Now everyone should have a fair chance to make their saves and auto-success will be more rare.
I started playing in 2nd edition where basically you always could fail or make a save with less dramatic differences between characters. That might be a large part of what shapes my preference for a different save system.
2) I do not think class dipping makes multi-class shine at all. I do have some house rules in play that help multi-classing characters but I try not to promote 1 level class dip for the front loaded benefits, the front loaded saves do not make much sense to me on top of that. A fighter barbarian has no reason to have saves better or worse than a single class.
I am trying to make single class characters more appealing or at least fairly workable, but it is not my intention to punish multi-classing players.
3) I agree, but the monk in this campaign will be the unchained version which has two good saves. Before I read up on unchained I tried to touch up a monk's saves with some class features. Still mind became a flat +2 on will saves, and 1 ki could be spent to reroll a failed save as an immediate action.
4) I think the consequences will be quite tame, the stronger saves in a party are slightly less strong than they are in the old system (like -2), the weak saves are only a little higher like +1 at lvl 6, +2 at lvl 12 and +3 at lvl 18. The change is really not that dramatic.
The bonus on saves outlined is to help create characters that are a bit less item dependent mainly but not essential to the system.
5) The synergy is a bit over the top, I consider it a bad thing to have characters feel like they have no chance to make a save and others that are not even a little nervous rolling.
All the heroes in a party can function roughly in the same league without taking away their special skill.
6) the changes are not that complicated, you can determine saves by character level and ability score at the basics. Different, but not more complicated. I could boost up weaker and penalize stronger classes but I consider the saves enough of a mess that a blanket overhaul works better to create the base I want.
Grant the same +2 bonuses a character class gets at 1st level, but only to his or her first class. Additional +2s from multiclassing are not gained.
Possible but it wouldn't really fix classes that have notoriously weak saves, though it might help over specialization a little bit.
Making characters weaker overall is not my intention, I just want to boost up the weaker characters a notch and take down stronger characters a notch regarding saves.
It is a fundamental shift in how gameplay works.
You basically have to ask yourself the question: Do you want saves numbers to mean something at higher levels, or do you want to have saves as an automatic and binary thing, where the roll is perfunctory (barring outlier rolls).
I would like that confusion spell to have a little more chance to affect characters with traditionally good will saves and a little less chance to affect characters with traditionally bad saves.
Going from an almost certain save and almost certain failure, to a good chance of making that save and a good chance of failing that save.
It's not an attempt to have characters fail much more or much less than before over all the levels of play, just to spread "the pain" out a bit more over different characters. Among other reasons.
The changes are more dramatic when you consider that you have lowered good saves and raised bad saves to such a degree that all saves are virtually the same.
Look at it this way, if two players - a rogue and a fighter, are fighting some kind of fungus monster, with special attacks, look at how differently the fight might unfold.
The fungus sprays both of them with spores that require a fort save and lash vines at them requiring a reflex save. The fighter will likely (but not automatically) make his fort save and fail his reflex save, while the rogue will be the opposite. Even with his high fort save, the fighter could always roll below a 5 on his first and above a 15 on his second. So it isn't a certain thing. But that said, both of them can feel they have different strengths, and be more confident fighting say - one monster that only attacks fort, or one monster that attacks reflex. Both players will feel like there is teamwork occuring, and that they shore up their weaknesses with strengths.
In your reworked system, neither will feel the need to rely on each other, because both will essentially be rolling for both saves with nearly identical bonuses. A difference of 3 or less is essentially not different at all. It also means that if something that has a high DC effect comes by, nobody will be able to deal with it because nobody has a particularly high save in one regard that might be able to deflect that effect. Likewise, if something with not a high enough effect DC comes by, nobody will care about it because it can't touch them - whereas previously such an effect might have been a legit threat against at least 1 or 2 party members.
Basically, when you say you don't want people to "auto succeed/fail throws" well, first of all I think you're exaggerating, but more importantly - you're just trading one form of auto succeed/fail for another (except your version gives up diversity as well), since it means unless you VERY finely tune your enemies your characters will be doing the same against them anyways. Whereas in the previous system, everyone had a strength or weakness.
I think it is a good idea to shorten the gap between strong and weak saves, but a revised system should still reflect the differences between individual classes. But sure, conditional bonuses work fine as well.
I could fix the saves to a class but I like to give characters the option to increase will saves as a warrior or fortitude as a rogue or caster.
I am deliberately moving away from the class system so characters are not defined (as much) by the classes they picked, and a little more freedom to customize but not increase specialization.
So the question is: How should the probabilities look like at higher levels? For simplicity's sake, lets assume that buffs and debuffs cancel each other out.
A character with a low base save and a low ability score has a
+3 base save
+3 resistance
+2 ability modifier
+2 feat (maybe)
= +8/+10
A character with a high base save and a high ability score has a
+6 base save
+3 resistance
+6 ability modifier
= +15
A weak character has a 40-50% chance of success, while a strong character has a 75% chance of success. So far, that seems to work out fine.
So, a character with a low base save and a low ability score has a
+6 base save
+5 resistance
+4 ability modifier
+2 feat (iron will/great fortitude)
= +15/+17
While a character with a high base save and a high ability modifier has a
+12 base save
+5 resistance
+10 ability modifier
= +27
The weak character doesn't look as bad as one might have expected (40-50% success chance means no auto-fail), though against opponents with above average DCs, he is still likely to fail. The strong character is definitely on the save side.
So, according to this admittedly simplified estimates, the system is actually not as bad as people often make it out to be, but there are some extreme cases.
Now, assuming a low magic game, those resistance bonuses will likely be smaller or fall away, and buffs are less likely than debuffs, so a small increase is reasonable. Changing the base save from +12/+6 to +9 will shorten the gap, but it won't make everything the same, which is the goal of this proposal.
The changes are more dramatic when you consider that you have lowered good saves and raised bad saves to such a degree that all saves are virtually the same.
Base saves is only about half what your total save ends up being. There will still be a pretty big difference between someone who is focused on a save, and someone who isn't set up for it.
Ability score bonus, racial/class features, spell boosts (morale typically), and feat bonus.
Besides, if you give a "class save bonus" of +2 for what used to be the High saves, it will mean that High saves aren't lowered, and Poor saves are bumped up by 4 points.
This is enough to bring things close enough that a d20 roll matters again, and it's not just an (almost) automatic situation.
Grant the same +2 bonuses a character class gets at 1st level, but only to his or her first class. Additional +2s from multiclassing are not gained.Possible but it wouldn't really fix classes that have notoriously weak saves, though it might help over specialization a little bit.
Making characters weaker overall is not my intention, I just want to boost up the weaker characters a notch and take down stronger characters a notch regarding saves.
You could also change all of those +2s to +1s. Thats how prestige classes work (unfortunately).