Saving Throw issue with DM

[pallandrome]

I wasn't trying to come off as saying the OP was either a munchkin or a Cherry picker, I was just trying to point out an example why a GM might make such a rule. I probably should have been more clear on that, so it's my bad.

You are right, though, about removing favored class and xp penalties being an easy way to start trouble. I do remove those features in my game, but only because I keep a very close eye on any multi-classing, and plan the adventures accordingly. I also make sure that just cause there is no XP penalty, does not mean they can multiclass freely. They have to find someone to TEACH them that new class first.

 

[moritheil]

Your DM is wrong and is using some far-fetched excuse to try to cover it up.

Generally there are two kinds of DMs: those that can roll with powergaming and those that can't. If other incidents pop up where he houserules for his personal vision of balance and refuses to even admit he is houseruling, consider a new DM.

Oh, and FWIW, I don't really consider this powergaming. If he were powergaming for saves he could easily have something higher than +20 to saves across the board at level 15.

 

[monboesen]

Sounds like the DM uses the fractional saves the same way that I do. Simply add together all class levels with good fortitude and consult the table. I assume that all you class levels grant good fortitude save progression, so thats 15 levels of good progression = +9 Fortitude.


If you had any class levels that granted poor fortitude save progression you add them up too, consult the table and add the two numbers (the one from good progression and the one from bad progression) together and round the number off.

Lets say for instance that you have a level 10 fighter/5 rogue.

10 levels of good fortitude progression (fighter levels) = +7
5 levels of bad progression (rogue levels) = +1 2/3
Fortitude save = 7 + 1 2/3 = +8

I have no idea whether or not that is the intended way, but it works very well IMO. Keeps everybodys saves on the same scale and prevents massively increased save bonuses from multiclassing.


Since your guy only have classes that have the same progression in all three saves (Good Fort, Poor Refl, Poor Will, as I recall it), he will have the exact same base saves as any 15 level fighter.

 

[blargney the second]

Sounds like he's thinking of the Star Wars multiclassing rules.

 

[Nail]

It's especially hard to convince a DM they're wrong, when they are in fact correct.

You sure 'bout that?

We're talking about page 73 of the Unearthed Arcana, yes?

"To determine the total base save bonus or base attack bonus of a multiclass character, add together the fractional values gained from each of her class levels."

Example: Clr 5/Ftr 2 (the example given in the book, both have "good" Fort saves)

From 5 Clr levels: Fort +4 1/2 , Ref +1 2/3 , Will +4 1/2
From 2 Ftr levels: Fort +3 , Ref +2/3 , Will +2/3

Add 'em up:
Fort +7 1/2 , Ref +2 1/3 , Will +5 1/6

Round 'em off:
Fort +7 , Ref +2, Will +5

Compared to the "normal" system given in the PH 3.5:
Fort +7 , Ref +1, Will +4


...would ya look at that! You *do* add in the +2 at first level for each class!

So.......who's correct, again?

 

[Nail]

Nail, you are correct per the rules in the PHB, but the DM isn't using those rules.

Those rules (in the UA) *don't* work the way the OP's DM thinks they do. They are very similar to those in the PH.

 

[Deset Gled]

Those rules (in the UA) *don't* work the way the OP's DM thinks they do. They are very similar to those in the PH.

Interesting. I thought that the UA variant worked the same as monboeson and the DM described. I'll have to get my hands on the book and re-read that section.

It doesn't really make sense to me that the +2 would be included in such a system. That basically means that the character will always benefit from the multiclassing Save system, but never get any of the negative effects.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Interesting. I thought that the UA variant worked the same as monboeson and the DM described. I'll have to get my hands on the book and re-read that section.

I don't know why I see this come up so often, but Nail's explanation is correct. You don't add up the class levels with good bonuses and then consult the chart. You add up the bonuses gained by each class. It's clearly spelled out in the instructions for using the chart.

 

[brehobit]

I don't know why I see this come up so often, but Nail's explanation is correct. You don't add up the class levels with good bonuses and then consult the chart. You add up the bonuses gained by each class. It's clearly spelled out in the instructions for using the chart.

Oddly, I read it the same way as the OP's DM. I don't own the book (bookstore reading) and it doesn't appear to be in the SRD (odd as most of UA is).

In any case, it becomes a house rule. A good one IMO. (Says the guy who had a fighter1/ranger1/barbarian1/duskblade1/dragonmark heir 1 and a silly-good fort save, +11 or 13 as I recall. Pretty good other saves too...) Multi-classing is fighter types is natural anyways. Giving them a huge fort save for it is kinda silly.

I'd say talk to the DM.

Mark

 

[Nail]

(Says the guy who had a fighter1/ranger1/barbarian1/duskblade1/dragonmark heir 1 and a silly-good fort save, +11 or 13 as I recall. Pretty good other saves too...)

You sure the other saves are "pretty good"? I doubt it.

Besides, let's keep our eyes of the prize: limiting base save scores is not the problem. Excessive 1-level-dip multiclassing is the problem.

Bottom Line: The Op's DM interpreted the rules incorrectly. Period.