Fractional BAB/saves

[Kerrick]

As I was writing up some rules for multiclass characters using the fractional BAB/save system, I realized something I hadn't seen before. I'll lay it out below:


Fractional BAB: Adding a level in a class with a good BAB (barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin) adds +1; a level in a class with a medium BAB (bard, cleric, druid, monk, rogue) adds +0.75; a level in a class with a poor BAB (sorcerer, wizard) adds +0.5.

Fractions are rounded down when calculating BAB, though you still keep track of them. For example, a Rog 1/Ftr 1 has a BAB of +1.75 (rounded down to +1). If he gained a second level in rogue, it would become +2.5, or +2.

Nothing really major here, though I'm considering rounding up if the fraction is above .5 - so the Rog 1/Ftr 1 would be BAB +2. Not really game breaking, IMO, since it corrects itself after the first level - a Rog 10/Ftr 10 would be 17.5 (+18) vs. a normal Rog 10/Ftr 10 - BAB +17.

The weirdness (and the reason I'm posting this) comes from the saves.

Fractional saves: Adding a level in a second class adds +0.5 to the class' good save(s) and +0.33 to the class' poor save(s). For example, a Rog 1/Ftr 1 would have Fort +0.5 (+0), Ref +2.33 (+2), Will +0.5 (+0). Adding a second level of rogue would give him Fort +0.8 (+0), Ref +2.8 (+2), Will +0.8.

Now, I was thinking that this system is slightly flawed in that it would require you to figure out which class comes at L1. So I thought about applying the bonus at every level - a Rog 1 would have saves of +0.33 (+0), +0.5 (+0, or +1 if you round up), and +0.33 (+0). This reduces the impact of the good save and makes all the saves closer to each other. For example:

A Rog 1/Ftr 1 would be Fort +0.8 (+1), Ref +0.8 (+1), Will +0.66 (+1) vs. Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +0.

A Rog 10/Ftr 10 would be Fort +8.3 (+8), Ref +8.3 (+8), Will +6.6 (+7) vs. Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +6.


I'm also considering changing the poor save to 40% of level instead of 33% (1/3), due to an analysis I made of the save system. This change would be much easier to apply with the fractional save system - instead of adding +0.33, you'd add +0.4 for a poor save.

A Rog 1/Ftr 1 would be Fort +0.9 (+1), Ref +0.9 (+1), Will +0.9 (+1), vs. Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +0.

A Rog 10/Ftr 10 would be Fort +9 (4+5), Ref +9 (5+4), Will +8 (4+4), vs. Fort +10, Ref +10, Will +6.


Personally, I can live with losing a point from the high save(s) in exchange for a couple points to the low save(s). I hate the unified BAB/save progression - it leads to homogeneity and cookie-cutter syndrome, IMO, and I rather like the different progressions representing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each class. I think this system could go a long way toward fixing some of the problems with multiclassing.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Isn't medium BAB 0.75 (3/4) though? Which is also halfway between the others, which works out neatly.

And saves can be perfectly expressed in 6ths, if you want to make it easy on yourself.

 

[Runestar]

It would be better to always round down. Else, you get weird scenarios like a rogue1/bard1 getting bab+2 (same as a fighter), even better than a rogue2.

 

[Kerrick]

Isn't medium BAB 0.75 (3/4) though? Which is also halfway between the others, which works out neatly.

Oh yeah, you're right. I got stuck on 2/3 for some reason.

And saves can be perfectly expressed in 6ths, if you want to make it easy on yourself.

True. I'm really leaning toward making the low save 0.4, though.

It would be better to always round down. Else, you get weird scenarios like a rogue1/bard1 getting bab+2 (same as a fighter), even better than a rogue2.

Well... as I pointed out, we only experience that wonkiness with 1-2 levels of each class - it evens out afterward (I think; I haven't done an in-depth analysis of this yet). Rog 1/Brd 1 is +1.5, same as a Rog 2.

What we end up with is:

L3: 2.25 (2)
L4: 3.0 (3)
L5: 3.75 (4)
L6: 4.5 (5)
L7: 5.25 (5)
L8: 6.0 (6)
L9: 6.75 (7)
L10: 7.5 (8)

As opposed to:

L3: +2
L4: +3
L5: +3
L6: +4
L7: +5
L8: +6
L9: +6
L10: +7

So overall, it gives them about a half a point boost - definitely not a bad thing, IMO. They're still lagging well behind the fighter classes, which is also good. I haven't done an in-depth analysis of this yet, but I'll do one tonight.

 

[Kerrick]

Nothing really major here, though I'm considering rounding up if the fraction is above .5 - so the Rog 1/Ftr 1 would be BAB +2. Not really game breaking, IMO, since it corrects itself after the first level - a Rog 10/Ftr 10 would be 17.5 (+18) vs. a normal Rog 10/Ftr 10 - BAB +17.

Yeah... after actually writing things down, instead of doing the math in my head, I remembered that all decimals are rounded down in D&D math. So the Rog 10/Ftr 10 would be +17.5 or +17.

Unfortunately, applying the same rule to saves (i.e., starting at the base fraction instead of +2) really screws things over - everyone would start out at +0.5 for good saves and +0.33 for poor saves - effectively, 0s across the board. What I might do is the same thing I did for skills - if you get a good save in any class, you gain a one-time +2 bonus to that save in addition to the normal +0.5 for that level.

Then, the Rog 1 would have saves of Fort +0.5 (+0), Ref +2.5 (+0), Will +0.33 (+0). If he took a level in fighter, they'd become: Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +0.66 (+0). If he took a level in, say, ranger, he wouldn't gain another +2 to Fort or Ref - his saves would be Fort +3.5 (+3), Ref +3.5 (+3), Will +0.99 (+0) instead of +4/+5/+1 by the RAW. (At this point, +0.4 for poor save is looking a lot better because it's easier to add and it would scale faster - he'd actually have a +1 at L3, though I'd round the +0.99 to +1 anyway.)

This would prevent the wonkiness we see from players taking levels in multiple classes with the same (or similar) saves - say, Ftr 1/Bbn 1/Rgr 1; he'd have Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0 - thus preventing abuse and not penalizing players who DO take levels in those classes because it's in their character concept.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

Hey Kerrick,

The way I do fractional BAB/Saves is purely mathmatical formula, which is what they are...they just express it per level and then tell us dummies to "go look at your class table pooky-bear". Which is why we had to endure years of wonky saves and BAB because using math would be "too hard for my little pooky-bear"

Which is REALLY funny when you look at that aweful table in UA that deigns to allow us to use fractions....but we still can't use our heads.....we have to go look at our tables! And that fractional table makes my head HURT!

As you have put forth: Good save is .5 (1/2) per level
Bad save is .333 (1/3) per level

And as for the Medium save, .4 (2/5) per level

Now all we do to "fix" the level 1 bump is this: WHENEVER a character gets a good save FOR THE FIRST TIME they get a +2 to that save (+1 for the Medium save).

At any level, the saves will equal what they "would be" for a single classed character. (Except for the medium save...I still don't understand why they expressed it that way. If you use my 2/5 + 1 progression it won't exactly match the table...but it will at 1st level, and at 20th level...and its consistent with the other save progressions.)

Now, I admit that I've gamed with a guy or two that sucks at math, and I have to constantly audit his saves for him. Such mental twister isn't for everyone. But I am willing to bet that almost all game groups larger than two people have someone to be the math police. It works for us.

Later

 

[Kerrick]

Now all we do to "fix" the level 1 bump is this: WHENEVER a character gets a good save FOR THE FIRST TIME they get a +2 to that save (+1 for the Medium save).

Right. I mentioned that in my last post. But... there's no Medium save. I just bumped the low save to the Medium save progression