BAB and multiclassing

[flamewolf393]

One of my players has two class levels that are both 3/4s BAB progressions, but each one gives +0 at level 1. The player is trying to tell me that it is actually +.75 rounded down to +0. So they think they are getting +.75 and +.75 to equal +1.5, or just +1 rounded down when they should still be at +0. Can someone please tell me how to properly explain this to them? And if possible link to the rulings.

[Snowbluff]

Tell him you are not using fractional BaB, and then burn his copy of the UA.

It's easy. Count your levels in each class, reference the chart, and then add the 2 values.

Also, rounding down rules.

[Deepbluediver]

One of my players has two class levels that are both 3/4s BAB progressions, but each one gives +0 at level 1. The player is trying to tell me that it is actually +.75 rounded down to +0. So they think they are getting +.75 and +.75 to equal +1.5, or just +1 rounded down when they should still be at +0. Can someone please tell me how to properly explain this to them?

I think most of the responses you are going to get will be the opposite.

Using fractional numbers is a variant from UA to avoid having multiclass characters with unusually high saves and low BAB. So long as he doesn't try to claim a +4 bonus to saves at level 2, I would just let him have the +1.

[flamewolf393]

But they are trying to say that by RAW you are supposed to add the .75 progression. NOT just the number on the chart. What is the actual RAW on this?

[Amphetryon]

But they are trying to say that by RAW you are supposed to add the .75 progression. NOT just the number on the chart. What is the actual RAW on this?

The RAW is the numbers on the chart, UNLESS you're using the variant Fractional BAB system from Unearthed Arcana.

[mattie_p]

But they are trying to say that by RAW you are supposed to add the .75 progression. NOT just the number on the chart. What is the actual RAW on this?

The actual RAW is add the numbers on the chart, not the fraction. Your player is describing an optional rule which would be beneficial to him in this case, and it is up to you if you want to implement it.

And swordsaged/

[Coidzor]

But they are trying to say that by RAW you are supposed to add the .75 progression. NOT just the number on the chart. What is the actual RAW on this?

Standard: 0

Fractional BAB: .75 + .75 = 1.5, rounds down to 1.

Fractional BAB is a better rule to follow in general, but it is a variant rule.


Tell him you are not using fractional BaB, and then burn his copy of the UA.

Well that escalated quickly.

[phlidwsn]

To be clearer, he's referencing the 'Fractional Base Attack Bonus' variant rules from Unearthed Arcana, pg 73. So no, by default its 0+0=0 for BAB, unless you add in this variant rule

[Prime32]

RAW, a character with levels in 20 fighter-like classes would have a +40 Fort save and +0 Ref/Will saves (compared to +12/+6). So the RAW progression is commonly ignored because it's illogical and metagame-y.

[Deepbluediver]

To be clearer, he's referencing the 'Fractional Base Attack Bonus' variant rules from Unearthed Arcana, pg 73. So no, by default its 0+0=0 for BAB, unless you add in this variant rule

Apparently the rule balances BAB, but still allows stacking the +2 modifier from saves (so, for example, a Cleric 1/Wizard 1 would have a +4 to Will). If you want to go with a truly balanced approach, I would recommend a little houseruling.

Overall though, unless you get into some really crazy multiclassing (Sor 1/Wiz 1/Clr 1/Brd 1 :smalltongue:) it's overall effect on the game will be small, I think, especially as you level up.

Edit: Or what Prime32 said.

[CaladanMoonblad]

So, from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm).


Base Attack Bonus
A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Nowhere, does the description talk about fractions. You get what you get. That one level dip into Wizard or Cleric to pick up 1st level Arcane or Divine spells, no BAB for you. That's why BAB starts at 0. You know, because that second attack is so very precious at level 6 for a Ranger/Fighter/Barbarian/Warrior etc. Same thing for Rogue- it might look interesting to pick up a free +1d6 sneak attack, but oh! +0 BAB at first level.

Your player basically wants an extra +1 BAB while also getting the SQs for those classes. S/He wants their cake and to eat it too. And woe to the GM who lets a player run over them on something so basic, so integral towards the notion of game balance...

[Shining Wrath]

If he uses the UA fractional BAB, he should also use the UA fractional SR bonuses.

Ask him if he's willing to trade saving rolls for BAB.

If he is, then let him live with the consequences.

[eggynack]

If he uses the UA fractional BAB, he should also use the UA fractional SR bonuses.

Ask him if he's willing to trade saving rolls for BAB.

If he is, then let him live with the consequences.
What indication do you have of that? It looks like the save rules are entirely and completely beneficial. I can't see any indication that you'd lose the +2 at first level. It looks like it'd be a net positive in any and all situations.

[Deepbluediver]

What indication do you have of that? It looks like the save rules are entirely and completely beneficial. I can't see any indication that you'd lose the +2 at first level. It looks like it'd be a net positive in any and all situations.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people assume that in that variant the BAB and Saves work the same way, but as I just discovered it does not. So in contravention to all common sense, even when WotC is having one good idea, they're pairing it with a bad one.

[eggynack]

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people assume that in that variant the BAB and Saves work the same way, but as I just discovered it does not. So in contravention to all common sense, even when WotC is having one good idea, they're pairing it with a bad one.
In fact, it looks like you get +2.5 to your saves at first level. That means that a barbarian 1/fighter 1 gets a +5 fort save, and that the theoretical super dipper goes from +40 in their good save, to a +50. At least this means that your good and bad saves aren't quite so far apart, though it's about as far from a punishment for fractional BAB as you can get.

[Andezzar]

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people assume that in that variant the BAB and Saves work the same way, but as I just discovered it does not. So in contravention to all common sense, even when WotC is having one good idea, they're pairing it with a bad one.I don't quite see what you are getting at. Regardless of whether you use the normal or the fractional save progression, the first level in a class gives +2 to any good save.

It seems that getting high save bonuses through multiclassing is the intention of the designers. If it wasn't, they could have said (in Core) that only on the first character level you get the +2 to good saves.

[Immabozo]

Tell them that if that 1 BAB is so important to them, get the Skilled enchantment on their weapon. Treated as if they had a 3/4 BAB, with that weapon.

[Deepbluediver]

I don't quite see what you are getting at. Regardless of whether you use the normal or the fractional save progression, the first level in a class gives +2 to any good save.

It seems that getting high save bonuses through multiclassing is the intention of the designers. If it wasn't, they could have said (in Core) that only on the first character level you get the +2 to good saves.

Was it also an intention of the designers that Multiclass characters have poor BAB? If the answer is "yes", then why? That seems like sort of an unusual dynamic to force on players.

The point behind the fractional BAB was that it normalizes the BAB for a multiclass character to be the same as a single-class character with a similar level and build. The assumption then is that the variant would do the same for Saves.

It strikes me as odd that it does not. If I am misunderstanding your post, please be more explicit.

[Urpriest]

Was it also an intention of the designers that Multiclass characters have poor BAB? If the answer is "yes", then why? That seems like sort of an unusual dynamic to force on players.

The point behind the fractional BAB was that it normalizes the BAB for a multiclass character to be the same as a single-class character with a similar level and build. The assumption then is that the variant would do the same for Saves.

It strikes me as odd that it does not. If I am misunderstanding your post, please be more explicit.

Fractional BAB and saves require players to understand fractions. While everyone understands fractions, they're kind of stereotypical to object to in the "I don't like math" demographic, so regardless of the fact that nobody actually has trouble with fractions it would make sense for the designers to leave them out of the core rules.

By contrast, the +2 at first level thing is pretty easy to at least gesture towards handling. Prestige classes get +2 at first level despite the fact that a character entering them will always have at least one base class level. Contrast with d20 Modern, where PrCs don't get +2 at first level. It's pretty clear that if the designers didn't want the +2 to stack from different classes then they would at least have built PrCs like they did in d20 Modern.

[EdokTheTwitch]

In fact, it looks like you get +2.5 to your saves at first level. That means that a barbarian 1/fighter 1 gets a +5 fort save, and that the theoretical super dipper goes from +40 in their good save, to a +50. At least this means that your good and bad saves aren't quite so far apart, though it's about as far from a punishment for fractional BAB as you can get.

Actually, i believe they had something different in mind: i think that this is an alternate way of progression for the saves, not a simple addition. Let me try and explain (bad English :D ):

Let's take your Fighter1/Barbarian1 as an example. At level one, he is 2-0-0. and when he gains a level, his saves do not stack based on the class table, they advance on the basis whether they have a strong or weak progression. Meaning, his fortitude keeps going up based as it would to an straight fighter, and becomes +3, instead of stacking the +2 he would get in the two classes combined. So, no matter how hard somebody tries, their saves can never go over 12.

Let us say that after this, the Ftr1/Bnb1 character takes a level of ranger. His fortitude is still on strong progression, so he gets +1/2 in that, still keeping him at +3; his reflex gains +2 1/2, getting him to +3 1/6 (as he had 2/3 from his first two levels); and his will goes to +1, as he got a +1/3 from each of his 3 classes.

On level 4, if he took another level in ranger, he would gain a +1/2 in fort and ref, and +1/3 in will. Let me know if any of this makes any sense to you :D

[eggynack]

Actually, i believe they had something different in mind: i think that this is an alternate way of progression for the saves, not a simple addition. Let me try and explain (bad English :D ):

Let's take your Fighter1/Barbarian1 as an example. At level one, he is 2-0-0. and when he gains a level, his saves do not stack based on the class table, they advance on the basis whether they have a strong or weak progression. Meaning, his fortitude keeps going up based as it would to an straight fighter, and becomes +3, instead of stacking the +2 he would get in the two classes combined. So, no matter how hard somebody tries, their saves can never go over 12.

Let us say that after this, the Ftr1/Bnb1 character takes a level of ranger. His fortitude is still on strong progression, so he gets +1/2 in that, still keeping him at +3; his reflex gains +2 1/2, getting him to +3 1/6 (as he had 2/3 from his first two levels); and his will goes to +1, as he got a +1/3 from each of his 3 classes.

On level 4, if he took another level in ranger, he would gain a +1/2 in fort and ref, and +1/3 in will. Let me know if any of this makes any sense to you :D
Well, that'd be true if that were true. I'm pretty sure that it's completely untrue though. The example character is a cleric 5/fighter 2. It's level 7, so its fortitude save would be +5.5 in your view. However, it's explicitly listed as having a fortitude save of 7.5. That's a +3 from two levels of fighter, added to a +4.5 from five levels of cleric. Thus, the system seems to work exactly as I've claimed, and the fighter 1/ barbarian 1 would have a fortitude save of +5.

Edit: Accidentally wrote the fort save as +4, despite its +5'ness being the whole point. Now, it is befixed.

[grarrrg]

By contrast, the +2 at first level thing is pretty easy to at least gesture towards handling. Prestige classes get +2 at first level despite the fact that a character entering them will always have at least one base class level. Contrast with d20 Modern, where PrCs don't get +2 at first level. It's pretty clear that if the designers didn't want the +2 to stack from different classes then they would at least have built PrCs like they did in d20 Modern.

PF semi-fixed this by having PrC's NOT get a +2 'good save' bonus at the first level, BUT the first level effectively gives 2 levels worth of saves.
Assume a 3 level PrC with a Good Fort Save.
DnD would have Fort go +2, +3, +3 (which Fractionally is +2.5, +3, +3.5).
PF would have Fort go +1, +1, +2 (which Fractionally is +1, +1.5, +2).
DnD bad saves would be +0, +0, +1 (fractions +1/3, +2/3, +1).
PF bad saves would be +0, +1, +1 (fractions +2/3, +1, +1 1/3).

So PF still gives you a slight bonus for the Good saves, but without the massive +2.

[EdokTheTwitch]

Well, that'd be true if that were true. I'm pretty sure that it's completely untrue though. The example character is a cleric 5/fighter 2. It's level 7, so its fortitude save would be +5.5 in your view. However, it's explicitly listed as having a fortitude save of 7.5. That's a +3 from two levels of fighter, added to a 4.5 from five levels of cleric. Thus, the system seems to work exactly as I've claimed, and the fighter 1/ barbarian 1 would have a fortitude save of +4.

Stupid WotC and stupid rules... I like mine better :P
Thanks for pointing that out btw :D

[Andezzar]

The point behind the fractional BAB was that it normalizes the BAB for a multiclass character to be the same as a single-class character with a similar level and build. The assumption then is that the variant would do the same for Saves.

It strikes me as odd that it does not. If I am misunderstanding your post, please be more explicit.Actually it does smooth the progression of saves, particularly if you alternate weak saves. Per core you get four levels of +0 and then level 5 and level 6 increase the weak save by 1 each. With the fractional progression, you get +1 at level 3 and +2 at level 6

If you alternate a strong and a weak save, you get the following base saves:


Lvl Core UA
1 2 2
2 2 2
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3
6 4 4
7 5 4
8 5 4
9 5 5
10 5 5

[eggynack]

Actually it does smooth the progression of saves, particularly if you alternate weak saves. Per core you get four levels of +0 and then level 5 and level 6 increase the weak save by 1 each. With the fractional progression, you get +1 at level 3 and +2 at level 6

If you alternate a strong and a weak save, you get the following base saves:


Lvl Core UA
1 2 2
2 2 2
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3
6 4 4
7 5 4
8 5 4
9 5 5
10 5 5
I don't see why you say that. Those strong saves should consistently be raising the save by two in the core version, and at least two in the UA version. I guess it'd work the way you say if you do this with the same two base classes alternated, but that's not what anyone's talking about. In any situation with a number of quick dips, good saves get boosted way above normal levels.

[Andezzar]

I don't see why you say that. Those strong saves should consistently be raising the save by two in the core version, and at least two in the UA version. I guess it'd work the way you say if you do this with the same two base classes alternated, but that's not what anyone's talking about. In any situation with a number of quick dips, good saves get boosted way above normal levels.You are right if you take only one level of lots of different classes with a strong save you will get better saves with the variant than with out it. Does that happen very often?

[eggynack]

You are right if you take only one level of lots of different classes with a strong save you will get better saves with the variant than with out it. Does that happen very often?
Kinda. I think that it actually balances the game though. Most high optimization melee builds are based on a series of quick one or two level dips. Most melee classes are super front-loaded, so something like a barbarian 2/ fighter 2 is pretty viable. Casting classes, by contrast, tend to avoid multiclassing for the most part.

[Coidzor]

Your player basically wants an extra +1 BAB while also getting the SQs for those classes. S/He wants their cake and to eat it too. And woe to the GM who lets a player run over them on something so basic, so integral towards the notion of game balance...

Nah, fractional BAB doesn't make characters that much stronger, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill there.

[Deepbluediver]

Fractional BAB and saves require players to understand fractions. While everyone understands fractions, they're kind of stereotypical to object to in the "I don't like math" demographic, so regardless of the fact that nobody actually has trouble with fractions it would make sense for the designers to leave them out of the core rules.

Ok, but what we're talking about is a variant rule system anyway, so I'm not quite clear on how this relates.


By contrast, the +2 at first level thing is pretty easy to at least gesture towards handling. Prestige classes get +2 at first level despite the fact that a character entering them will always have at least one base class level. Contrast with d20 Modern, where PrCs don't get +2 at first level. It's pretty clear that if the designers didn't want the +2 to stack from different classes then they would at least have built PrCs like they did in d20 Modern.

D20 modern was published after 3.0, but before 3.5. Maybe it was one of those things they didn't want to try and change between editions.

But all that is not really the point of what I was getting at. The variant rule addresses a quirk (I won't call it a problem) of the BAB mechanics that makes multiclass characters have unusual values. Then the variant option goes on to recognize that a very similar issues exits with Saves, but does nothing to change it. In fact, it seems like a strict reading would make it worse (Ftr 1/Bbr 1 would have a Fort save of 2.5+2.5=5).

Like several other posters have noted, the obvious assumption for what the rule should be doing, isn't what it actually does. That's what I found strange.


Actually it does smooth the progression of saves, particularly if you alternate weak saves. Per core you get four levels of +0 and then level 5 and level 6 increase the weak save by 1 each. With the fractional progression, you get +1 at level 3 and +2 at level 6
If you alternate a strong and a weak save, you get the following base saves:


Lvl Core UA
1 2 2
2 2 2
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3
6 4 4
7 5 4
8 5 4
9 5 5
10 5 5

Yes, if you alternate a weak and strong save then it's fine, but that's not what we where saying the problem was. The issue arises when you take several dips into classes that all have the same good saves. This is a core issue, it's not something new. But the alternate rule missed a good chance to correct it in a way that most people probably would have supported.

[Coidzor]

Ok, but what we're talking about is a variant rule system anyway, so I'm not quite clear on how this relates.

Well, the OP's player seems to think either they're using the variant or the variant is the default which is what started the thread. :smallconfused: I think.

[Andezzar]

Yes, if you alternate a weak and strong save then it's fine, but that's not what we where saying the problem was. The issue arises when you take several dips into classes that all have the same good saves. This is a core issue, it's not something new. But the alternate rule missed a good chance to correct it in a way that most people probably would have supported.Well except for a few exceptions dipping usually is weaker than using a single progression. Cf. Cleric 2/Wizard 2 vs. Cleric 4 or Wizard 4.

[eggynack]

Well except for a few exceptions dipping usually is weaker than using a single progression. Cf. Cleric 2/Wizard 2 vs. Cleric 4 or Wizard 4.
As I noted, that's generally not true for non-casters. There are a ton of great melee dips that you can take in quick succession. There's fighter and barbarian, like I mentioned, but you can also get totemist, or cleric (for cool cleric dip purposes), or psychic warrior, or any ToB class. You smush up as many of those as you want, until you hit a cool prestige class. I generally like barbarian 2/fighter 2, leading into runescarred berserker eventually. You can stick a good number of dips between the fighter and the berserker, and you end up with a pretty sweet build that I think ends up around tier three.

Fortunately, as I also noted, this tends to actually have a balancing effect on the game. Once you leave behind tier three and head towards tiers one and two, you lose crazy amounts through dips. There are some exceptions, but as the power of a class increases, the gains from dipping that class instead of taking it for a good number of levels decreases.

[Andezzar]

Additionally the dipping only becomes more attractive because of a house rule, a lot of people on this forum seem to use: They forgo the multiclass XP penalty. While this would not change much for the theoretical build of 20 different classes, a Class A 1/Class B 1/Class C 1/Class D 1/Class E 1/Class F 3 would not be able to advance ever because he gains no XP from adventuring, if none of the classes were his favored class. This assumes that you use the wierd D&D math of course instead of XP= base XP*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8=0.32768*XP

[eggynack]

Well, fortunately the dipping I'm talking about rarely exceeds two levels. If you're dipping, who's going to take more than two levels of fighter, barbarian, totemist, warblade, psychic warrior, or cleric? Crazy melee dip builds rarely come under fire from multiclassing penalty rules. If you're ever taking more than two levels in something, it's going to be from one of the prestige classes that caps off your progression. By the way, another use for crazy dipping is the diplomancer. That build runs till around level eleven, taking about one level in a ton of different classes.

[georgie_leech]

Additionally the dipping only becomes more attractive because of a house rule, a lot of people on this forum seem to use: They forgo the multiclass XP penalty. While this would not change much for the theoretical build of 20 different classes, a Class A 1/Class B 1/Class C 1/Class D 1/Class E 1/Class F 3 would not be able to advance ever because he gains no XP from adventuring, if none of the classes were his favored class. This assumes that you use the wierd D&D math of course instead of XP= base XP*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8=0.32768*XP

If a character is doing that much dipping, they can just go human and laugh at the multiclass xp penalty. Aside from that, most dips seem to be 2 levels anyway.

EDIT: Ninja'd with more explanation.

[Urpriest]

Additionally the dipping only becomes more attractive because of a house rule, a lot of people on this forum seem to use: They forgo the multiclass XP penalty. While this would not change much for the theoretical build of 20 different classes, a Class A 1/Class B 1/Class C 1/Class D 1/Class E 1/Class F 3 would not be able to advance ever because he gains no XP from adventuring, if none of the classes were his favored class. This assumes that you use the wierd D&D math of course instead of XP= base XP*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8=0.32768*XP


Well, fortunately the dipping I'm talking about rarely exceeds two levels. If you're dipping, who's going to take more than two levels of fighter, barbarian, totemist, warblade, psychic warrior, or cleric? Crazy melee dip builds rarely come under fire from multiclassing penalty rules. If you're ever taking more than two levels in something, it's going to be from one of the prestige classes that caps off your progression. By the way, another use for crazy dipping is the diplomancer. That build runs till around level eleven, taking about one level in a ton of different classes.

To expand a bit:

Suppose you start entering PrCs after level 5. PrC dips never trigger multiclassing penalties, so we can ignore them. Thus we have the following options for multiclassing before this point:

X 4/Y 1
X 3/Y 2
X 2/Y 2/Z 1
X 2/Y 1/Z 1/W 1
X 3/Y 1/Z 1
X 1/Y 1/Z 1/W 1/U 1

Out of those, only two trigger multiclassing penalties, and they cease to do so if you pick the right favored class. Even if you wait longer for PrCs, you've got a lot of leeway.

[Andezzar]

Of course, if you use PrCs for most of your levesl you will most likely not have the problem, but this is not always desired. For example Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Warblade X with X>2 will inccur a penalty for anyone who has not Favored Class: Any. There are not that many PrCs that advance maneuvers, and AFAIK none that do not change the flavor of the class.

[eggynack]

Of course, if you use PrCs for most of your levesl you will most likely not have the problem, but this is not always desired. For example Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Warblade X with X>2 will inccur a penalty for anyone who has not Favored Class: Any. There are not that many PrCs that advance maneuvers, and AFAIK none that do not change the flavor of the class.
That's not how you dip a warblade anyway. If you're just dipping, you stick the level as late as you can in the progression, so that your initiator level when you enter is as high as possible. Warblade 20 is probably better, but if we're using dips, the warblade makes a pretty good one. Multiclassing penalties are dumb, but the way people tend to multiclass tends to avoid them naturally. Obviously, not everyone is going to want a crazy dip build, but that doesn't mean that it isn't something people do. Just about any multiclass penalty that someone might incur can be obviated by taking the perfectly optimal race of human. You're mostly relying on corner cases to make your argument. Dipping is a thing, and it is a thing that happens, and it's a thing that can work. You can make a build that does not work, but that doesn't mean that builds that do work aren't rather common.

Edit: Also, the warblade 20 thing might actually not be better than the runescarred berserker build, at least when you get into the PrC. That class is frigging sweet.

[Amphetryon]

That's not how you dip a warblade anyway. If you're just dipping, you stick the level as late as you can in the progression, so that your initiator level when you enter is as high as possible. Warblade 20 is probably better, but if we're using dips, the warblade makes a pretty good one. Multiclassing penalties are dumb, but the way people tend to multiclass tends to avoid them naturally. Obviously, not everyone is going to want a crazy dip build, but that doesn't mean that it isn't something people do. Just about any multiclass penalty that someone might incur can be obviated by taking the perfectly optimal race of human. You're mostly relying on corner cases to make your argument. Dipping is a thing, and it is a thing that happens, and it's a thing that can work. You can make a build that does not work, but that doesn't mean that builds that do work aren't rather common.

Edit: Also, the warblade 20 thing might actually not be better than the runescarred berserker build, at least when you get into the PrC. That class is frigging sweet.

You found a way to get into Runescarred Berserker?

[Spuddles]

Additionally the dipping only becomes more attractive because of a house rule, a lot of people on this forum seem to use: They forgo the multiclass XP penalty. While this would not change much for the theoretical build of 20 different classes, a Class A 1/Class B 1/Class C 1/Class D 1/Class E 1/Class F 3 would not be able to advance ever because he gains no XP from adventuring, if none of the classes were his favored class. This assumes that you use the wierd D&D math of course instead of XP= base XP*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8=0.32768*XP

Weird D&D math only appliers to multipliers, not percents. It's why power gamers are so eager to point to the leap attack errata.

[Andezzar]

Weird D&D math only appliers to multipliers, not percents. It's why power gamers are so eager to point to the leap attack errata.Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but Leap Attack with or without errata does not feature multiple multipliers, unless you score a critical hit.

[grarrrg]

Weird D&D math only appliers to multipliers, not percents.

Technically Multipliers ARE percents, which is the exact reason why they seem to "act weird".

D&D: Assume you have two different "x2" multipliers that affect your weapon damage.
You add them together and subtract 1, which means you get x3 to damage.
This seems very odd.

Percent-wise, you'd have two modifiers that give +100% damage.
So you add them together and get +200% to damage, which means you get 300% of your original damage.
This is not odd, this actually makes sense.

[prufock]

PHB page 59, under "Multiclass Characters" there is a "Base Attack Bonus" heading.

Add the base attack bonuses acquired for each class to get the character's base attack bonus.

Simple.