Talk:Multiclassing Save Progression (3.5e Variant Rule)

Good idea, but might need some adjustment
The problem I have with this is that adding a single level of bad saves will seriously dilute your good saves, and adding a single level of good saves will greatly improve your bad saves (though that part is already true in a sense). This is good for simplicity but I think the effects at the single-level edge are too severe. It would be less simple but I think a variant where you could add together your levels of good and bad saves and come up with a number might make more sense. Surgo (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So... let me understand; a commoner 19 / monk 1 and a monk 19 / commoner 1 would have the same saves under this system? Seems a bit... off :-3 --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A more reasonable system: If you have any levels in classes/hd that grant a good save, you get +2 to that save. Otherwise, your saves are equal to 1/3 your HD that grant "bad" progression to those saves + 2/3 HD that grant "good" progression. Reasonable Base Saving Throws (3.5e Variant Rule) Fluffykittens (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what I ended up with here wasn't even the original idea I had to start with. It began with something like "There's only a "Good" save progression, the "Poor" progression just counts as -4 from the "Good" and multiclassing bumps the penalty by one in either direction for every level, with -4 being the max penalty and -1 being the minimum for mixed progressions." However, that ended up sounding far too complicated and I just tried to calculate out a fair progression. That said, I don't like how mixing currently works, mainly with your base save going down when you multiclass potentially. With that, would a simple fix like "If your save would go down, it remains where it is instead". I rather don't mind if base saves are bumped up a bit by multiclassing, if it keeps characters in a competitive range without making them "Good". If I can't get this all to work out fairly easily and simply, I'm just going to scratch it since it was an experiment anyways. --Ganteka Future (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ↳Also, is this more of a Transformational or Supplemental variant rule?...'cause I'm kinda a dumb about that. --Ganteka Future (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Transformation. It alters a pre-existing rule (how saves work) rather than introduce new rules on how to do unspecified action X Y and Z. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)