I apologize in advance if everyone else already knows this, but I kind of skipped over 3.x and haven't been here long. I just had a sudden realization: the BAB can be made multi-class friendly, in a balanced and easy-to-use way, with a class level multiplier. For 1/2-BAB classes like wizards, the BAB multiplier would be a 2; for 3/4-BAB classes like clerics and rogues, it would be a 3; and for full-BAB classes like fighters, it would be a 4. Just take your number of levels in a class, multiply that by its BAB multiplier, add the results for each of your classes together, divide the sum by 4, and round down. Voila! Your current BAB.
It came to me because I was looking at making a halfing fighter/rogue, and I wanted to become a halfling opportunist later, but then he'd suddenly become worse at hitting enemies in combat than any of his three classes by themselves. It didn't make sense and discouraged the creation of a really interesting character by underpowering it, so I thought, what if there was an easy fix? And I found one! Yay. I intend to try my hand at GMing someday, and I'll definitely be using this.
I apologize in advance if everyone else already knows this, but I kind of skipped over 3.x and haven't been here long. I just had a sudden realization: the BAB can be made multi-class friendly, in a balanced and easy-to-use way, with a class level multiplier. For 1/2-BAB classes like wizards, the BAB multiplier would be a 2; for 3/4-BAB classes like clerics and rogues, it would be a 3; and for full-BAB classes like fighters, it would be a 4. Just take your number of levels in a class, multiply that by its BAB multiplier, add the results for each of your classes together, divide the sum by 4, and round down. Voila! Your current BAB.
It came to me because I was looking at making a halfing fighter/rogue, and I wanted to become a halfling opportunist later, but then he'd suddenly become worse at hitting enemies in combat than any of his three classes by themselves. It didn't make sense and discouraged the creation of a really interesting character by underpowering it, so I thought, what if there was an easy fix? And I found one! Yay. I intend to try my hand at GMing someday, and I'll definitely be using this.
I'm not sure because you did not post specifics, but I believe you are operating under some false pretenses/misconceptions.
Multi-class BAB does not need to be fixed because it already works as intended. You add the BAB from your different classes together to get your total BAB.
For example, a level 6 character (Fighter 4/Rogue 2)
Fighter 4 BAB: +4
Rogue 2 BAB: +1
Total BAB: +5
This is one lower than a straight fighter (+6/+1) but one higher than a straight rogue (+3).
I know you said you missed 3.x, but this was already covered in "Unearthed Arcana" for 3.5. It basically says +1 BAB for full BAB classes, +3/4 for 3/4 BAB classes, and +1/2 for 1/2 BAB classes, rounded down after adding BAB, including fractions, from all class together. The current BAB system does the same thing, rounding down before adding class BABs together.
The same theory can be done with saving throws, except adding 1/2 per level for a good save, and 1/3 per level for a poor save.
I know you said you missed 3.x, but this was already covered in "Unearthed Arcana" for 3.5. It basically says +1 BAB for full BAB classes, +3/4 for 3/4 BAB classes, and +1/2 for 1/2 BAB classes, rounded down after adding BAB, including fractions, from all class together. The current BAB system does the same thing, rounding down before adding class BABs together.
The same theory can be done with saving throws, except adding 1/2 per level for a good save, and 1/3 per level for a poor save.
Aha! I knew that it was too good of an idea to be original. ;) But you'd be amazed how many people can't add fractions, which is why I came up with a method that gives the same result in the easiest way for the most people. And "[except] rounding down before" (instead of after) adding class BABs is a pretty big exception to me.
Why mulipers, ug so complicated (being comical).
Yes there is UA's fractional BAB and saves.
I also looked at this myself while diddling around with a 3.75 prior to Pathfinder. An even easier solution is to stack (add) all classes with the same progression and use that number. Add all the different progressions in each category. Your mimium is always the Poor values in each.
This way you can actually save a great deal of table space by not reprinting saves and BAB over and over again. Just like the HD line you simply write
Fighter
HD: d10
BAB: Good
Saves: Fort (Good), Ref (Poor), Will (Poor)
Rogue
HD: d8
BAB: Average
Saves: Fort (Good), Ref (Poor), Will (Poor)
Witch
HD: d6
BAB: Poor
Saves: Fort (Poor), Ref (Poor), Will (Good)
A Rogue 1 / Witch 1
Would have a BAB +1 (minimum)
Saves: Fort (+0 stack/min), Ref (+2), Will (+2)
Very simple very easy and only needs addition basically.
Oh, nice! Handles multiclassing gracefully, while remaining as easy to use as the current system! I like it a lot -- enough that I'm not going to bother figuring out if it's as precise as mine. It's close enough for sure, so now that is the one that I'll use, when I finally get around to GMing.
The problem to be fixed is that as written multiclassing at produces low BAB when it shouldn't. A Rogue/Witch should always have a BAB lower than a pure Rogue and higher than a pure Witch. A Rogue 1/Witch 1 has a BAB of +0.
I don't believe that is a problem (it is working as intended) so I will simply bow out of the conversation. Best wishes for those looking for a solution.
We do this BaB and save. For BaB add 1, 3/4, 1/2. For saves you get 2 1/2 for good save once per save and add 1/2 for every level past first. For week save add 1/3. Add up total and only whole numbers count. So rouge 2 wizard 3 would have BaB +3 fort +1 2/3 reflex +4 1/2 will + 4 1/6. This system was introduced in uncana unearth a 3.5 book. This way you alway have BaB and save that are in line. Also supper save on type that you no fear ie fighter 2 ranger 4 barbarian 2 under base rules has fort of + 10 at level. Wich 4 better any straight good fort class at the same level. Add stat magic ect the multi classed is too strong. But only will of + 1 vs +2. This system is more balanced.
We do this BaB and save. For BaB add 1, 3/4, 1/2. For saves you get 2 1/2 for good save once per save and add 1/2 for every level past first. For week save add 1/3. Add up total and only whole numbers count. So rouge 2 wizard 3 would have BaB +3 fort +1 2/3 reflex +4 1/2 will + 4 1/6. This system was introduced in uncana unearth a 3.5 book. This way you alway have BaB and save that are in line. Also supper save on type that you no fear ie fighter 2 ranger 4 barbarian 2 under base rules has fort of + 10 at level. Wich 4 better any straight good fort class at the same level. Add stat magic ect the multi classed is too strong. But only will of + 1 vs +2. This system is more balanced.
Yes! Except your rule is superior to Unearthed Arcana (as it is the same as mine! kidding) because UA put it all in an additive table, presumably so it would be as "easy" as the PH tables. It is truly a horror to behold, particularly for those of us who aren't afraid of numbers and prefer an elegant formula.
-Cheers
We do this BaB and save. For BaB add 1, 3/4, 1/2. For saves you get 2 1/2 for good save once per save and add 1/2 for every level past first. For week save add 1/3. Add up total and only whole numbers count. So rouge 2 wizard 3 would have BaB +3 fort +1 2/3 reflex +4 1/2 will + 4 1/6. This system was introduced in uncana unearth a 3.5 book. This way you alway have BaB and save that are in line. Also supper save on type that you no fear ie fighter 2 ranger 4 barbarian 2 under base rules has fort of + 10 at level. Wich 4 better any straight good fort class at the same level. Add stat magic ect the multi classed is too strong. But only will of + 1 vs +2. This system is more balanced.
Yeah... still gonna go with Dorje Sylas's system. I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's too much work. Just add up all of the levels in classes that get a good fort save, and find that on the good save table; add up all the levels in classes that get a poor fort save, and find that on the poor save table; then add those together and you're done. It isn't perfect, but it's close enough to work well, and simple enough for lazy people. <cough> Sorry, I mean efficient people. Like me. I'm just conserving my energy, I swear! Yeeesss... I'm not being lazy, I'm being ecosensitive. ;)
We do this BaB and save. For BaB add 1, 3/4, 1/2. For saves you get 2 1/2 for good save once per save and add 1/2 for every level past first. For week save add 1/3. Add up total and only whole numbers count. So rouge 2 wizard 3 would have BaB +3 fort +1 2/3 reflex +4 1/2 will + 4 1/6. This system was introduced in uncana unearth a 3.5 book. This way you alway have BaB and save that are in line. Also supper save on type that you no fear ie fighter 2 ranger 4 barbarian 2 under base rules has fort of + 10 at level. Wich 4 better any straight good fort class at the same level. Add stat magic ect the multi classed is too strong. But only will of + 1 vs +2. This system is more balanced.Yeah... still gonna go with Dorje Sylas's system. I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's too much work. Just add up all of the levels in classes that get a good fort save, and find that on the good save table; add up all the levels in classes that get a poor fort save, and find that on the poor save table; then add those together and you're done. It isn't perfect, but it's close enough to work well, and simple enough for lazy people. <cough> Sorry, I mean efficient people. Like me. I'm just conserving my energy, I swear! Yeeesss... I'm not being lazy, I'm being ecosensitive. ;)
It not to much work my 4th grade little girl dose her own... So if she can then any one can.
Personally I agree with Tom S 820, I used the same fractional system (only get that big +2 once). The only reason I changed that I was going while diddling with 3.75 was exactly because of the mathphobes irrational fear of fractions. If I could have gotten away with a fractional system I would have.