Base attack and saves: rounding or fractional?

[tedcahill2]

If someone can point me to a post where this is already discussed please link it for me.

I'm personally a fan of using fractional base attack tables high = 1, med = .75 and low = .5 (all on a per level basis). So when a rogue multiclasses as a cleric, you don't necessarily get a +0 base attack bonus, you get another .75 and round from there. So a level 2 rogue (base +1) that takes a level in Cleric, doesn't remain at a +1 base for another level, they go up to +2 (.75 per level = 2.25 this +2).

Even more so for saving throws, I don't this a fighter 1, ranger 1, Cleric 1, should have +6 fort, +2 reflex, and +4 will (base saves). How does that make sense?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I agree with you entirely. I do, in fact, use the variant, myself, with the exception that I don't let players get the +2 each time they add a new class with a good save to a build that's already got a good bonus in that save for any level.

[eggynack]

Even more so for saving throws, I don't this a fighter 1, ranger 1, Cleric 1, should have +6 fort, +2 reflex, and +4 will (base saves). How does that make sense?
Fractional saves probably don't change in the way you think they do. The opening +2 actually becomes a +2.5, so the saves would be +5 1/3 fortitude (it was +4 originally, not +6), +3 1/6 reflex, and +3 1/6 will (it was +2 originally, not +4), which means that you go from +4 +2 +2 to +5 +3 +3. Fractional save rules only improve your saving throws. They never reduce them, to my knowledge.

[Celestia]

Fractional saves probably don't change in the way you think they do. The opening +2 actually becomes a +2.5, so the saves would be +5 1/3 fortitude (it was +4 originally, not +6), +3 1/6 reflex, and +3 1/6 will (it was +2 originally, not +4), which means that you go from +4 +2 +2 to +5 +3 +3. Fractional save rules only improve your saving throws. They never reduce them, to my knowledge.
Actually, fighter, ranger, and cleric do all have high Fortitude. So with fractional saves, it's +7.5.

Anyways, I like fractional rules, especially the fractional BAB. It doesn't help with high/low BAB, but it makes a huge difference for multiclassing with medium BAB classes.

[Troacctid]

I use fractional BAB, but not fractional saves. Multiclass characters already get an advantage on saves, so they don't need a bigger one.

[eggynack]

Actually, fighter, ranger, and cleric do all have high Fortitude. So with fractional saves, it's +7.5.
Oh, ranger. I kept reading that as rogue for some reason. Yeah, you get really high fort this way. One more good fortitude level and you're running +10 at level four, which is somewhat amusing to me. It's so interesting that people think that fractional saves remove the extra benefit from dipping a number of classes, when they actually made the benefit more present.

[Crake]

I agree with you entirely. I do, in fact, use the variant, myself, with the exception that I don't let players get the +2 each time they add a new class with a good save to a build that's already got a good bonus in that save for any level.

Pathfinder's fractional variant in unchained did the same thing, their reasoning was that your bad saves were improved by having them actually increase every 3 levels regardless, so your good saves lost their bonus +2 for each class with a good save.

3.5 on the other hand frequently has absurd save DCs that players need to overcome, so I'm not too fussed with letting players get really high saves.

[Celestia]

3.5 on the other hand frequently has absurd save DCs that players need to overcome, so I'm not too fussed with letting players get really high saves.
I agree, especially because the ones who typically dip around a lot are martials who could use every bone they can get. If your crazy multiclassing nets you a +27 fortitude save, that's perfectly fine with me.

[Uncle Pine]

I don't use fractional BAB and saves because they're variant rules that aren't guaranteed to be available at any given table. If I decide to use my time to build a crazy multiclass character trying to finagle all the cool features I need or want in a build, I want it to rely on the least amount of variant and homebrew elements so that it could work for any hypothetical DM, provided he didn't use or rely on houserules himself.

[weckar]

Uncle Pine, I think it is important the differentiate between 'variant' and 'house'rules.

[Zombimode]

Uncle Pine, I think it is important the differentiate between 'variant' and 'house'rules.

Really? Variants and Adaptations are just houserules suggestions.

To get into effect, they have to be houseruled in.

[tedcahill2]

Oh, ranger. I kept reading that as rogue for some reason. Yeah, you get really high fort this way. One more good fortitude level and you're running +10 at level four, which is somewhat amusing to me. It's so interesting that people think that fractional saves remove the extra benefit from dipping a number of classes, when they actually made the benefit more present.

That was my mistake. I mean that with saves you only get the +2 once, the. After that it's fractional. So in my example of fighter/ranger/cleric you wouldn't have +6 fort at level 3, you'd have three level in high fort classes, giving you a +3 fort.

[weckar]

Absolutely. But having the suggestion in place in official material means that it is much more likely to fly at another table.

[Uncle Pine]

Uncle Pine, I think it is important the differentiate between 'variant' and 'house'rules.
There is a difference, sure. It's rarer for new homebrew/rules to be approved compared to most official variants (unless the formers are very well balanced). However, fractional BAB and saves are inherently different from other variants (for example, psionic variants of PrCs) because they're not something you can get approved for your character by the DM and roll with it. All the group has to roll with it, which is why I don't like to take it for granted.

[Celestia]

There is a difference, sure. It's rarer for new homebrew/rules to be approved compared to most official variants (unless the formers are very well balanced). However, fractional BAB and saves are inherently different from other variants (for example, psionic variants of PrCs) because they're not something you can get approved for your character by the DM and roll with it. All the group has to roll with it, which is why I don't like to take it for granted.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to convince the other players to adopt a variant rule that would allow them to have higher BAB and saves.

[eggynack]

That was my mistake. I mean that with saves you only get the +2 once, the. After that it's fractional. So in my example of fighter/ranger/cleric you wouldn't have +6 fort at level 3, you'd have three level in high fort classes, giving you a +3 fort.
And I'm telling you that you're mistaken. The fractional save rules detailed in unearthed arcana don't just maintain the existing advantage from dipping. They expand upon it, turning a +6 into a +7.5. Check out the examples associated with the variant, and this fact should become clear.

[AnachroNinja]

I use fractional BAB but not saves.

[Zancloufer]

Been using fractional BaB and saves forever. Didn't even realize it was a variant rule at first. Pretty sure the d20 CRPGs used it as well.

Also on the note of saves: I'm pretty sure that granting +2 to all good saves every time you took the first level in one was a MASSIVE oversight. The way it is described (not the horrid example) sounds more like: Saving throw = 0.3*Poor levels + 0.5*Good levels +2 If have good save in ANY class. Otherwise fraction saves fall apart even faster than they did without the variant. Bit of RAI in your variant rule as IMHO trusting RAW for variant rules leads to even worse dysfunctions.

[eggynack]

Also on the note of saves: I'm pretty sure that granting +2 to all good saves every time you took the first level in one was a MASSIVE oversight. The way it is described (not the horrid example) sounds more like: Saving throw = 0.3*Poor levels + 0.5*Good levels +2 If have good save in ANY class. Otherwise fraction saves fall apart even faster than they did without the variant. Bit of RAI in your variant rule as IMHO trusting RAW for variant rules leads to even worse dysfunctions.
I usually consider example based things not all that oversighty. The rules are constructed such that they'd operate this way, and they explicitly confirmed that it does operate this way. It's a reading that obviously holds up by RAW, but critically I think it also holds up exceptionally well by RAI. Also, the extra dip based bonuses aren't necessarily a bad thing. The best classes in the game tend to work best over the long haul. Wizards rarely start dipping around like crazy. The weaker classes, meanwhile, tend to be the more frontloaded and open to dips. Barbarian, fighter, monk, anything ToB, and similar. Even the very dip friendly cleric doesn't use its dippishness in unfriendly ways compared to just being a cleric. It's not perfect in this role, but the rule offers a slight balance increase most of the time.