Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4528173" data-attributes="member: 4722">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4527850" target="_blank"> The Priest </a>Actually, I do use that variant. I can see why you're going with all x/8 progressions, but you don't really need to. See, what I've got is this:[sblock]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 +0.66; 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 +1.66 (rounded down to +1). If he gained a second level in rogue, it would become +2.33, 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 16.66 (+17) vs. a normal Rog 10/Ftr 10 - BAB +17.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.(This was written and posted a couple months ago; not long after, I said screw it and went with the 4/10 progression instead of 1/3.)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.As for dealing with the constant.. that was easy. Simply apply it once, and once only:Unfortunately, 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 do here 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.[/sblock]About what, the 9/8, or the 6 progressions? We've answered both of those already, but to reiterate: The 9/8 progression is too high; the 8/8 (or 1) scales faster than AC (I think I've still got the spreadsheet I did when I was trying to tweak ABs). Having six progressions... well, it's too much to keep track of, really. Don't forget, you have to apply this to monsters too (unless you plan on them being limited to 3), and really, I don't see the need for that many.Like I said, it's not a medium save - it's the new low save. I think it works well enough; most saves get a +1 boost, and the save at L20 is +8.Yeah, but does it really make them that unique? Anything with a low BAB isn't combat-capable, so tweaking their BAB won't do much; monks *might* benefit from an AB boost (people often refer to their "flurry of misses"); since we're redoing the cleric to not be such a combat machine, their medium AB is just fine as is, and rogues and bards are good too. Really, the three BABs correspond to front line (high), second line (medium), and rear (poor) - that's all you need.</blockquote>

Verification