Query regarding saving throws

[Cute_Riolu]

I have a question regarding saving throws. I'm aware that this is not an intended consequence of saving throws, but a friend of mine is convinced that every class you take should give you an additional +2 to their "good" saving throws.

I can't seem to find anything that indicates otherwise using google easily. Could I have some help?

[HalfGrammarGeek]

Welcome to the insanitude that is D&D. Yes, by the rules, your friend is right. A fighter 1/barbarian 1 has base Fort +4!

However it's not unheard of for DMs to house rule out this little nugget of cheese, and there is in fact an official variant that does so. I want to say it's in Unearthed Arcana...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by HalfGrammarGeek

Welcome to the insanitude that is D&D. Yes, by the rules, your friend is right. A fighter 1/barbarian 1 has base Fort +4!

However it's not unheard of for DMs to house rule out this little nugget of cheese, and there is in fact an official variant that does so. I want to say it's in Unearthed Arcana...

You're thinking of the fractional BAB and Saves variant?

If so, that actually explicitly includes the extra +2 for multiclassing multiple classes with the same good save.

I do suggest using the fractional BAB and saves variant without that little bit of nonsense though.

[Jade Dragon]

Originally Posted by Cute_Riolu

I have a question regarding saving throws. I'm aware that this is not an intended consequence of saving throws, but a friend of mine is convinced that every class you take should give you an additional +2 to their "good" saving throws.

I can't seem to find anything that indicates otherwise using google easily. Could I have some help?

When the fractional BAB/saving throws variant explicitly calls it out as still working when you use that variant, I think it counts as "intended", or at least "they're fine with it".

[tyckspoon]

He's right. 3.5's designers did not fully think through the consequences of their revolutionary new way of doing multiclass characters. Similar nonsense can happen with the BAB numbers by RAW- if you dig up enough classes/PRCs to dip into you can get a character with a +40 save and +0 BAB, which is pretty clearly a degenerate case. Fractional advancement of BAB/Saves is a common houserule to fix this, in which instead of only going by the tables you just take the actual advancement of the number instead- ie, a 'good' save doesn't advance by 1 every 2 levels. Instead it advances by 1/2 each level, and you just round down the fractions. An additional refinement is limiting the +2 boost to a 'good' save to only being received once, either only at the character's 1st level or once per save category (so if you start with a poor Reflex, for example, then you can still get the +2 by multiclassing to something with good Ref.. but you can't take Monk 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1 to get +6 Ref.)

[HalfGrammarGeek]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

You're thinking of the fractional BAB and Saves variant?

If so, that actually explicitly includes the extra +2 for multiclassing multiple classes with the same good save.

Hm, I could have sworn I've read something published that suggested PCs getting only the +2s from their first class. Maybe a digital article graced with the Soveliss pic...well, whatever.

I personally espouse a "You get the +2s from each of your classes, but they don't stack" house rule. That way players aren't thinking "Well it doesn't really fit my character, but if I take my classes in this particular order, I get more bonuses..."

EDIT: Everything tyckspoon just said.