How do you calculate base attack bonus?

[Masakan]

I know it varies from DM to DM but how would you calculate it from multiclassing?
just go with the base the classes give you? Or do you add them together like example. Multiclassing Cleric4/Monk2/Swordsage2(Don't ask) Would the Total be BaB 5 or 6?

[P.F.]

Typically you simply add them all together. Any class with less than the best BAB gives you a +0 to start, so there's a penalty to multiclassing as it puts you off your attack progression, so cleric 4 is +3, monk 2 is +1, and swoprdsage 2 is +1 fopr a total BAB of +5.

The alternative is the fractional base attack bonus, which allows for a slightly higher bonus at when multiclassing. Basically every class get either a 1/1, 3/4, or 1/2 bonus per level, and you simply round down. If cleric, monk, and swordsage all have the BAB = 3/4 HD progression, then a Cleric4/Monk2/Swordsage2 = 8 HD * 3/4 = +6.

[OldTrees1]

RAW it is added separately (+3 +1 +1 = +5)
Unless one is using the Fractional BAB/Saves Variant Rule from Unearthed Arcana(+8 * 3/4 = +6)


I personally prefer the fractional BAB/Saves system but I default to the normal way instead to reduce the complexity of my houserules(to make room in the players' heads for the other house rules).

[Red Fel]

I know it varies from DM to DM but how would you calculate it from multiclassing?
just go with the base the classes give you? Or do you add them together like example. Multiclassing Cleric4/Monk2/Swordsage2(Don't ask) Would the Total be BaB 5 or 6?

There are two methods, as you describe. One is to add the explicit numbers given. This is the default method. Let's take your example of a Cleric 4/ Monk 2/ Swordsage 2. A 4th-level Cleric has a +3 BAB, a 2nd-level Monk has +1, and a 2nd-level Swordsage also has +1. Put them together, 3 + 1 + 1 = 5. That's your total.

Another method is the fractional BAB method. This is presented in Unearthed Arcana. Basically, the UA method breaks down BAB into three categories - Good (+1 BAB every level), Average (+3/4 BAB every level), and Poor (+1/2 BAB every level). As an aside, the UA method does the same with saves.

Now, Cleric, Monk, and Swordsage all use an Average BAB progression - that is, at level 20, each would have +15 BAB, being 3/4 of their level in the class. So instead of going by the strict numbers proposed by the tables for those classes, we would simply add +3/4 for each level. Putting them together, that's (3/4 x 4) + (3/4 x 2) + (3/4 x 2) = 3 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 6. So the variant method produces a higher total.

If you go by the default method, you simply add the values listed in the class tables. It's less math, but it tends to result in lower numbers, particularly if you layer a lot of classes together. I prefer the fractional method, because to me it just makes better sense. That said, as mentioned, it's a variant, which means that not every DM runs it.

[Masakan]

There are two methods, as you describe. One is to add the explicit numbers given. This is the default method. Let's take your example of a Cleric 4/ Monk 2/ Swordsage 2. A 4th-level Cleric has a +3 BAB, a 2nd-level Monk has +1, and a 2nd-level Swordsage also has +1. Put them together, 3 + 1 + 1 = 5. That's your total.

Another method is the fractional BAB method. This is presented in Unearthed Arcana. Basically, the UA method breaks down BAB into three categories - Good (+1 BAB every level), Average (+3/4 BAB every level), and Poor (+1/2 BAB every level). As an aside, the UA method does the same with saves.

Now, Cleric, Monk, and Swordsage all use an Average BAB progression - that is, at level 20, each would have +15 BAB, being 3/4 of their level in the class. So instead of going by the strict numbers proposed by the tables for those classes, we would simply add +3/4 for each level. Putting them together, that's (3/4 x 4) + (3/4 x 2) + (3/4 x 2) = 3 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 6. So the variant method produces a higher total.

If you go by the default method, you simply add the values listed in the class tables. It's less math, but it tends to result in lower numbers, particularly if you layer a lot of classes together. I prefer the fractional method, because to me it just makes better sense. That said, as mentioned, it's a variant, which means that not every DM runs it.

I mentioned this in a last post because this rule...would effectively be the deciding factor between getting Freezing the Lifeblood at 12 or 15.(Going sacred fist obviously)

[Crake]

I mentioned this in a last post because this rule...would effectively be the deciding factor between getting Freezing the Lifeblood at 12 or 15.(Going sacred fist obviously)

If this is for a character you intend to play, the person you should be asking is the DM. I personally use fractional bab and saves as it is pretty much a requirement for gestalt characters, and I run an optional gestalt houserule, also it makes way more sense.

[Uncle Pine]

I don't use fractional BAB to keeps things simplier: I had a couple of players make weird faces when they asked help to turn their character concepts into full builds and where presented with builds with two to three base classes and a couple PrCs, imagine if I also had to add fractions to the mix to explain how they worked.

[Masakan]

I don't use fractional BAB to keeps things simplier: I had a couple of players make weird faces when they asked help to turn their character concepts into full builds and where presented with builds with two to three base classes and a couple PrCs, imagine if I also had to add fractions to the mix to explain how they worked.

It's middle school math geez.

[AvatarVecna]

It's middle school math geez.

Some people don't want to think too hard when playing. If that's how a person wants to game, that's their decision, and I won't fault them for it: turning your brain off for your entertainment is a viable choice.

Now, why they're choosing 3.5 for their "no thoughts necessary" entertainment, with it's fractals of complexity, is quite curious indeed.

[Coidzor]

I've always been a fan of the fractional BAB rule. Every level in a class like Wizard or Commoner gives 1/2 a point of BAB, every level in a class like Cleric or Rogue gives 3/4 a point of BAB, and every level in a class like Fighter or Paladin gives 1 point of BAB.

Add things together and then disregard the remaining fractions until the next time the character levels up. So BAB of 4.0, 4.25, 4.5 or 4.75 is all treated as BAB 4.

[P.F.]

I don't use fractional BAB to keeps things simplier: I had a couple of players make weird faces when they asked help to turn their character concepts into full builds and where presented with builds with two to three base classes and a couple PrCs, imagine if I also had to add fractions to the mix to explain how they worked.


It's middle school math geez.


Some people don't want to think too hard when playing. If that's how a person wants to game, that's their decision, and I won't fault them for it: turning your brain off for your entertainment is a viable choice.

Now, why they're choosing 3.5 for their "no thoughts necessary" entertainment, with it's fractals of complexity, is quite curious indeed.

And there's the reason that 3rd edition dropped the whole THAC0 attack roll system...

https://i.imgflip.com/sctzu.jpg

[Jack_Simth]

Now, why they're choosing 3.5 for their "no thoughts necessary" entertainment, with it's fractals of complexity, is quite curious indeed.Hey now! D&D isn't infinitely recursive on it's complexity like a true fractal. It's just arbitrarily largely recursive in it's complexity.

[AvatarVecna]

Hey now! D&D isn't infinitely recursive on it's complexity like a true fractal. It's just arbitrarily largely recursive in it's complexity.

#semantics #nitpicking #toomanyhashtags #sorrynotsorry

[Curmudgeon]

I personally prefer the fractional BAB/Saves system but I default to the normal way instead to reduce the complexity of my houserules(to make room in the players' heads for the other house rules).
This is part of the reason I use the regular rules for BAB and saves; I don't want house rule overload. (This isn't an official variant, but is labeled as a house rule in the book.) The other part of the reason for not using that Unearthed Arcana house rule is the source. If I allow a fairly reasonable rule like fractional BAB and saves that makes characters a bit stronger, I incur arguments about less reasonable rules from UA like bloodlines and gestalt characters. Unearthed Arcana has a lot of game options. I want my players to be grateful for the extra options they're allowed, rather than resentful for those which I disallow. So, generally speaking, I'm in favor of race and class options, but not too many variant rules which affect characters beyond race and class choices.

[Anlashok]

It's middle school math geez.

Actually quite a bit easier than that. A cleric 3/rogue 3 has the BAB or a cleric or rogue 6. Pretty easy.


The other part of the reason for not using that Unearthed Arcana house rule is the source. If I allow a fairly reasonable rule like fractional BAB and saves that makes characters a bit stronger, I incur arguments about less reasonable rules from UA like bloodlines and gestalt characters. Unearthed Arcana has a lot of game options
That... doesn't really make any sense though. Why would using one variant or house rule have anything to do with whether or not you use another variant or house rule?

[torrasque666]

That... doesn't really make any sense though. Why would using one variant or house rule have anything to do with whether or not you use another variant or house rule?

Because some people can be pretty whole hog about books. You allow one thing, then obviously it's all fair game. Actually had this with my first problem player. He assumed that because we allowed traits and flaws that obviously Item Familiar was fair game, despite being a separate variant rule.

[Masakan]

Because some people can be pretty whole hog about books. You allow one thing, then obviously it's all fair game. Actually had this with my first problem player. He assumed that because we allowed traits and flaws that obviously Item Familiar was fair game, despite being a separate variant rule.

Flaws are usually accepted because they are generally invaluable to any non caster hell even a lot of casters will love to take a flaw for a feat
Item Familer is good but by now means required, But without flaws...some builds are either impossible or force you to go human or strong heart halfling...which is annoying to say the least.

[OldTrees1]

Flaws are usually accepted because they are generally invaluable to any non caster hell even a lot of casters will love to take a flaw for a feat
Item Familer is good but by now means required, But without flaws...some builds are either impossible or force you to go human or strong heart halfling...which is annoying to say the least.

Hence it being a problem for a player to assume "Since X(flaws) is allowed, that implies Y(Item Familiar) is allowed since it is in the same book". If a DM has to deal with this problem frequently(like he implied he did) then the DM might very well not use only part of a book.

[Uncle Pine]

Actually quite a bit easier than that. A cleric 3/rogue 3 has the BAB or a cleric or rogue 6. Pretty easy.

Now calculate the BAB of a Wizard 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Cloicestered cleric of Oghma 1/Warblade 1/Jade Phoenix Mage 8 in less than 5 seconds.

[Masakan]

Now calculate the BAB of a Wizard 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Cloicestered cleric of Oghma 1/Warblade 1/Jade Phoenix Mage 8 in less than 5 seconds.
That would be 15

[AvatarVecna]

Took me a bit longer than 5 seconds, but only because I haven't memorized the BAB of Rainbow Servant. Turns out I guessed it correctly.

[ben-zayb]

LOL. Epic BAB rules, folks.

[Uncle Pine]

That would be 15


Took me a bit longer than 5 seconds, but only because I haven't memorized the BAB of Rainbow Servant. Turns out I guessed it correctly.

Nevertheless, for some people it's yet another table to keep track of. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the idea of fractional BAB: it's a sensible option, especially compared to variants that are better left alone like bloodlines and taint, but since I've never really had any problem with normal BAB and there are people who dislike fractional BAB for reasons, I prefer to not use it.

[cfalcon]

I use the normal rule, where the BAB for each class adds up according to the chart.

Fractional BAB is annoying and only really helps players if they are building some multiclassed orgy. But if that's your playstyle, definitely consider it- it removes some of the penalties that the non-full BAB classes have in multiclassing, and if you have guys that are like thingX 2 / thingY 3 / munchkinDipClass 1 / prestigeBro 6 / morePrestigeBro 4 / , then it could help them out. The math can be a bit more in that case, but it could be worth it to not make the cost of playing the class builds your group likes strangely hating base attack bonuses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fractional BAB and saves at my table.

We just don't see any good reason not to. The math is laughably simple and multiclassing already puts the character below the standard power curve for any of its classes before PrC's bring it together.