[3.5] BAB and Base Save progression stacking

[Extra Anchovies]

Base attack bonuses (because "boni" isn't a word) from multiple classes with identical BAB progressions stack as if you had one class with that BAB progression, right? That is, Cleric 3/Rogue 1 would have 4 levels of average BAB as if they were single-classed (+3) rather than that of a 3rd-level cleric plus that of a 1st-level rogue (+2 and +0, total +2).

And the same thing applies to saves, correct? For example, a Rogue 2/Wizard 1 would have base Fortitude of +1 (3 levels of poor Fort), base Reflex of +3 (2 levels good, one level poor), and base Will of +2 (one level good, two levels poor).

Does this apply to prestige classes as well? For example, would a Rogue 5/Assassin 1 have BAB of +4 (six levels average BAB), base fortitude of +2 (six levels poor fortitude), base reflex of +5 (six levels good reflex), and base will of +2 (six levels poor will), yes? They wouldn't just tack the fifth-level rogue bases onto the 1st-level assassin bases for BAB +3, fort +1, reflex +6, and will +1? I've been coming across occasional references to prestige class BAB and saves not stacking as if they were core classes, but I'm really skeptical of that (for an example, see the "Assassin" subsection of this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=11264572&postcount=5); not trying to single it out, it is one of many).

[eggynack]

Base attack bonuses (because "boni" isn't a word) from multiple classes with identical BAB progressions stack as if you had one class with that BAB progression, right? That is, Cleric 3/Rogue 1 would have 4 levels of average BAB as if they were single-classed (+3) rather than that of a 3rd-level cleric plus that of a 1st-level rogue (+2 and +0, total +2).

And the same thing applies to saves, correct? For example, a Rogue 2/Wizard 1 would have base Fortitude of +1 (3 levels of poor Fort), base Reflex of +3 (2 levels good, one level poor), and base Will of +2 (one level good, two levels poor).
No on both counts. You add the numbers just as they appear on the class. It makes things act a bit weird, as you end up with oddly high saves and low BAB from multiclassing, but such is the way the game works. You can solve the BAB problem with fractional BAB rules, because progressions are uniform, but saves actually continue to use the big save bonuses from dipping. Prestige classes work in exactly the same way, in case that's not clear.

Edit: For citations on this stuff, see page 59 of the PHB. The examples provided make it pretty clear that things work as I've said.

[The Insaniac]

It depends on if you're using the fractional BAB progression variant from Unearthed Arcana. If you are, then your attack bonuses combine the way you described. However, by the base rules, you gain the listed attack bonus from your class so a Rogue 3/Cleric 1 has a +2 BAB (+2 and +0) because that's what the tables say they get at those levels.

Saves from multiple classes stack by whatever the table says so taking a level of monk gives you +2 to all saves no matter what your bonuses already are. I think there is also a fractional save variant, but I'm not sure.


Edit: Swordsaged

[eggynack]

I think there is also a fractional save variant, but I'm not sure.
There is one, in the same section as the fractional BAB rules. However, if you look at the examples, then it's made reasonably clear that the bonuses for dipping are maintained. They're actually more than maintained, if you want to be technical. A first level character with a good save gets a +2.5 to that save, so if they take two such classes then they end up with a +5, compared to the +4 obtained through the use of the other system. The fractional save rules do even things out somewhat, such that low saves are gradually increased even if you take a bunch of dips in classes that don't progress those saves.

[Chronos]

Though, people who use the fractional progression houserule also often houserule that you only get the +2 from a good save once.

[eggynack]

Though, people who use the fractional progression houserule also often houserule that you only get the +2 from a good save once.
Quite so, often without even realizing that it's a house rule. Not a thing I'm personally in favor of, as I feel that the way the fractional save system is now results in a marginal increase in game balance, but I can vaguely see the logic in not wanting to incentivize crazy dipping.

[nedz]

Though, people who use the fractional progression houserule also often houserule that you only get the +2 from a good save once.

Or not at all.

[Extra Anchovies]

Wow, that's... weird. I've been accidentally playing with fractional BAB/saves the whole time, then. I'm probably going to stick with it, too; crazy dipping just for save bonuses seems really metagamey and nonsensical to me.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Wow, that's... weird. I've been accidentally playing with fractional BAB/saves the whole time, then. I'm probably going to stick with it, too; crazy dipping just for save bonuses seems really metagamey and nonsensical to me.

It's not that big of a problem in practice. Most crazy dipping builds aren't very good at anything besides high saves. You usually get more out of a character that actually uses his classes to get some decent abilities.

[eggynack]

Wow, that's... weird. I've been accidentally playing with fractional BAB/saves the whole time, then. I'm probably going to stick with it, too; crazy dipping just for save bonuses seems really metagamey and nonsensical to me.
As I mentioned, fractional saves still lead to save bonuses from dipping. You'd need to play with some house ruled version of the save rules to avoid it. Still though, driving your character's progression based on save bonuses is a rather bad idea if you seek power, and melee characters are more likely to have a bunch of dips than caster characters. Might be worth considering using the actual rules as a result.

[nedz]

As I mentioned, fractional saves still lead to save bonuses from dipping. You'd need to play with some house ruled version of the save rules to avoid it. Still though, driving your character's progression based on save bonuses is a rather bad idea if you seek power, and melee characters are more likely to have a bunch of dips than caster characters. Might be worth considering using the actual rules as a result.

I do know one guy I play with who is convinced that Fractional Saves/BAB (without the +2) are important to stop min-maxing out saves :smallbiggrin:. I understand the concept of opportunity cost and roll with the idea so that people will optimise their characters in more useful ways. There is the point that the standard method does increase the likelihood that saves will be made, and that not all of these are due to spells: most of the important saves are against spells though — so it weakens casters slightly.

[Drelua]

Wow, that's... weird. I've been accidentally playing with fractional BAB/saves the whole time, then. I'm probably going to stick with it, too; crazy dipping just for save bonuses seems really metagamey and nonsensical to me.

I actually did exactly the same thing years ago when I started playing 3.5. I was completely new to RPGs, and when I started thinking about multiclassing I just assumed I should count how many levels of good and how many levels of bad save progression I have, and did the same thing with BAB, because it just seemed to make the most sense. Just adding together what's on the charts strikes me as being very unbalanced in a lot of ways.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, I've also seen people who didn't realize that there were two standard save progressions, or three standard BAB progressions, at all.