Save Progressions

[Aus_Snow]

Just to get this out of the way to start with: I don't use the following system, but I think it could work for those who wish to stick more closely to 3e. Right then. . .

Each class has either one each of good (valued at 2 points), medium (1 point) and poor (0 points) saves, or all medium (3 x 1 point.) IOW, a total of 3.

Good = 6/12 per level, plus 2 at 1st level.
Medium = 5/12 per level, plus 1 at 1st level.
Poor = 4/12 per level.

So, the Monk would now have all medium. Fighter could have medium Will, for example. Cleric and Druid would have medium Fort.

A bit of other compensation/rebalancing might be needed for some classes (not Cleric, Druid or Fighter, IMO!) of course.


I get the feeling I've already posted this somewhere. Oh well. Any thoughts about it?

 

[Kerrick]

Just one thing: What would stop everyone from simply taking medium saves? It's only 3 points below a good save at L20, and you can easily boost that with items and the high stats. For instance, a cleric's Will save (moderate) would be around +16, vs. +20 for a high Will save. His Reflex would be around +13 vs. +7 (so a 3-point difference between high and low saves, vs. 13 points - that's damn good, IMO). This, of course, leads to the obvious conclusion: just give everyone the medium save progression.

Me, I just boosted the low save to 5/12 (it's actually level * 0.4), so it's a bit higher overall.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um, well, it ends up precisely even at 1st, as well as at 20th.

1st: 2/1/0 vs. 1/1/1 (so, 3)
20th: 12/9/6 vs. 9/9/9 (so, 27)

Unless I'm not quite grokking what you're meaning. Because, as I understand it, having +3 / +0 / -3 variance from medium, or simply none at all, is equally good. . .

Or, put another way, how is a +3 somewhere not worth a -3 elsewhere?

Also, 'what would stop them' ? Well, PCs don't just get to choose. Their classes still dictate what save they get; they'd just be slightly different, that's all.

 

[Kerrick]

Um, well, it ends up precisely even at 1st, as well as at 20th.

1st: 2/1/0 vs. 1/1/1 (so, 3)
20th: 12/9/6 vs. 9/9/9 (so, 27)

Unless I'm not quite grokking what you're meaning. Because, as I understand it, having +3 / +0 / -3 variance from medium, or simply none at all, is equally good. . .

What I meant was, a cleric's Will save using the existing rules is around +20 (making basic assumptions for Wisdom, magic items, etc.) vs. +16 for your system. Likewise, the Reflex save is +7 vs. +13 - so there's a 3-point difference between high and low saves with your system, vs. a 13-point difference with 3.5's. With a 3-point average difference, though, there's little point in having differing progressions - hence my suggestion to simply use a medium progression for everyone, a la 4E. I dunno, really. This is just my opinion, but I like a little greater variance. The 40% rule, along with fractional saves, allows the lower save to keep up with the high save - there's only a 4-point difference between the base saves at L20 (+12 vs. +8); with all the other modifiers, it ends up being around 5-6, IIRC. That's large enough to make an actual difference without handicapping the PCs.

Or, put another way, how is a +3 somewhere not worth a -3 elsewhere?

You could still give them different saves (frex, fighters get high Fort, medium Ref, and low Will), and their high and low saves would be around 3 points apart. The only problem I can see (and this would really require playtesting to prove) is that high saves become auto-saves at higher levels; but, since all the saves are closer, you could simply boost all DCs and have a reasonable chance of challenging the PCs.

 

[Hereticus]

With so many characters going multi-class, I figured it was easier to progress all characters (regardless of class) at Level/2 rather than the various good/poor progressions.