Could we please get an official ruling on this?
I doubt you'll see it part of the official Pathfinder rules. Fractional BAB was in Wotc's Unearthed Arcana as an optional rule. As far as I know, that isn't open content. Best you'll be able to do is house rule it yourself, but don't expect to see it available for PFS.
|
No, Pathfinder does not have any fractional BAB/Saves rules. So yes, that 12th level character would have +0 BAB.
Me, I just add all the like progression levels, compare them to a single classed character with that progression, and use that.
E.G. a Fighter 3/Cleric 3 would have BAB 5 (3+2) Fort 5 (All Good) Reflex 2 (All Poor) Will 4 (3 Good +1 Poor)
Add a level of say, Sorcerer, and BAB goes up 1 (4 levels of Poor) and Will goes up 1 (4 levels of Good).
In this system, your 12th level character would have +7 BAB.
|
Fractional BAB rules are not core rules. The main reason no-one uses them is because it takes more math, and it allows people to exploit saves.
Personally, I let people do fractional BAB if and only if they also do fractional saves, with the starting +2 for a "good" save only happening once (so a Monk 1/Cleric 1 would have a base will save of +3, not +4).
I read an article (in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, I think) that touched on the issue of reduced saves for multiclass characters. It proposed two solutions:
1) Do exactly what you just did, with the exception of saves. Instead of adding together the base save bonuses in the class description, take the better save progression from those levels and add them up as though the character had progressed to his current level in that class. For example: a Fighter 1/Barbarian 1/Monk 1 would have a base Fort save of +3 (the Good progression for a level 3 fighter) instead of +6 (the sum of the level 1 bonuses for each of those classes).
2) Too bad! The punishment for players trying to min-max is that their BaB suffers horribly. They were probably trying to break the game, anyway.
|
|
Even if they are hard for you it's not hard to make a table that will handle them for you.
If you notice, there are already tables made to handle that for you. :)
Honestly, you could cut all the BAB/Save progressions from the class tables and have an entry stating 'Good/Average/Poor' and 'Good/Poor'. And then you take the number of levels you have in each and reference the BAB/Save progression table at the front of the book to get your numbers.
One table. Covers every class. And multiclass. Bam. Done.
(Table 3-1, Page 22 of the 3.5 PHB. Kinda sad Paizo dropped it from Pathfinder.)
Chaostream, I'm sorry, but you're not likely to get an answer. The expression "fractional BAB" isn't mentioned in the rules anywhere that I can think of for Pathfinder. It's an optional rule from 3E. So houserule it and go would be my suggestion.
|
|
This would be a wonderful way of doing it in my opinion.
I know, that's why I suggest it whenever it comes up. :)
For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.
Since bonuses are not represented as fractions, you cannot add fractions together. Every level that says +0 adds zero, not a fraction.
To be fair that's not actually a contentious cases ...
Actually, it's not. As you yourself have stated, the RAW is very clear on this issue. Additionally, based on the way multiclass characters have been presented within published material, it is clear this is how the rules are intended to work.
As others have stated, you're free to use this as a houserule in your game. However, there's no indication that it is a rule a majority of players use. This isn't an issue that requires a FAQ answer, nor is there anything in need of official clarification in this instance; it's simply a non-issue in Pathfinder.
In all fairness, my response was intended to be somewhat patronizing. The fact that you stated:
I understand there are arguments for both sides, although I don't agree with "2) Too bad! The punishment for players trying to min-max is that their BaB suffers horribly. They were probably trying to break the game, anyway." as a valid argument :P
That's perfectly fine, except then you follow that post with:
In our home games it's been the practice for years, unfortunately I would like an official ruling for a competition I want to compete in that's coming up.
That doesn't really sit well with me; it makes it sound as if you want the rules modified specifically so that you can win some contest, that your efforts are not an effort to improve the game, but are nothing more than an attempt to improve your chances of personal gain.
More importantly, though, is that I was pointing out the futility of your request.
Why do you need "official" permission for something like this to be presented as a houserule? What you're requesting makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to use this as a houserule, then do it. You don't need the developer's OK to do so. There may be others that agree with this rule, but to say this is a legitimate question to them is fairly ridiculous; most who agree with the concept simply add it to their game and move on.
Your original question was if there was an official ruling to fractional BAB progression. It was pointed out to you that it doesn't exist within the printed Pathfinder rules. You're free to disagree with that, and you can add it to your game. But looking for official permission to do so is rather pointless.
Could we please get an official ruling on this?I doubt you'll see it part of the official Pathfinder rules. Fractional BAB was in Wotc's Unearthed Arcana as an optional rule. As far as I know, that isn't open content. Best you'll be able to do is house rule it yourself, but don't expect to see it available for PFS.
That book is about 99% open content, unusually for Wizards. The only things that are not open content are direct references to "Product Identity" monsters.
Honestly, I think this belongs in the Suggestions category, and not Rules Questions. There are no fractional BAB rules in PF, and a FAQ would just say as much. This is a suggestion to include them.
Alchemist 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Inquisitor 1 / Monk 1 / Oracle 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorceror 1 / Summoner 1 / Witch 1 / Wizard 1Could we please get an official ruling on this?
It's not official, but I'm sure the ruling will be something like this: "This character deserves his +0 BAB, and also deserves to die."
Why do you need such a ruling for this contest, anyway? You can't utilize the rules as written to create your concept? Did you stop to think that the entire point of such contests might be to see what can be accomplished within the scope of the rules, and that seeking an official ruling that bypasses or changes those rules might invalidate the entire concept?
You're asking for an official ruling to change how the game's been designed and run since it was released. It's not going to happen, nor should it; everything that's been produced from day one would be invalidated by such a change. You're absolutely correct about beta testing and feedback solicitation. But the fact of the matter is, as far as this concept is concerned that was completed a long time ago.
There's nothing wrong with asking a question, and it's fine not to like the answer. But it's simply selfish to then ask that the rules be changed entirely to conform to your ideas on the matter. If you're the one making the rules for such a contest, just allow fractional BAB and be done with it. If you're not, which it sounds like is the situation in this instance, then just swallow your pride, follow the rules that have been laid out, and stop trying to circumvent them.
Especially when your attempts to circumvent them would have a massive effect on the entirety of the game ...
If you use Fractional BAB, you should also consider normalizing Saving Throws so taking multiple classes with the 1st level bonus (+2, basically +1 above a normal +1 for the level per se) doesn´t boost Good Saves (Paizo does this with PrC´s, I´m not sure why they didn´t for Base Classes, probably cuz it´s easier to not think about it). You can then have Fractional Saves as well, improving Bad Saves from lots of Classes at the same time as toning down the Good Saves in most cases. Obviously, you need to be comfortable with House Rules to do this.
Personally I believe there should be penalties for stacking that many multi-class levels. Arriving at level 12 with a BAB of +0 is no one's fault but the person playing the character.
If someone arrived at my table and slapped down a character sheet with twelve classes as described by the OP, I would have no sympathy for them. Take your BAB +0 or roll a new character.
Multi-classing is meant to provide a character with more options, sure, but in my opinion it is not intended to create a swiss army knife of skills on a single character sheet.
I guess any such "official" rule will have to wait until Paizo does their own Unearthed Arcana - if they ever do that. I wouldn't mind it at all, but with lots of variant concepts already in other books, I wouldn't hold my breath.
But why do you need an "official optional rule"? It's optional, so the official part won't really help. You won't get to do it in PFS, and nobody can tell you what you do with the rules in your own games. Or is this a "My GM only considers house-rules if he sees someone famous doing them first?" situation?
You can tell your GM that KaeYoss said the rule is totally cool if you're okay with the extra bookkeeping. I'm famous, ask everyone around here :D
Personally, Pathfinder rules tend to encourage sticking to a single class, so this probably isn't something Paizo will be in a haste to fix.
I *personally* would love to see fractional bonuses written up as an *official* optional rule. There are other people that would too. My goal here is to get dev input on the concept, period.
I don't know what you're asking for, then. An optional rule is, by definition, still a houserule, whether presented by a developer or not; if I understand what you've said thus far, you need more than this for your contest, no?
I've not made any judgement of you, just the posts and efforts you've made here; I don't know who you are, nor do I care. But those efforts strike me as selfish and pointless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been running Fractional BAB and Saves for maybe a decade and found it freed up multiclassing characters and PrCs. Strong endorsement here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might be simple to have a rule that regardless of the multiclass combo you can't have saves or base attack lower then a commoner with your character level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using fraction BAB and saves has always just seemed like common sense to me, I had no idea that it wasn't intended or that there was so much controversy over the issue. I'd always figured it was simply never mentioned specifically because the developers didn't think it needed to be.
I suppose in the end it's not that big a difference for most character concepts but still, that 1...maybe even 2 BAB makes a pretty major difference sometimes.
Do most people really handicap those who multi-class or take prestige classes like this? With pathfinder you're already encouraged to stay with a single class, do we really need to make it any less appealing of an option?
If a player presented a character as posted by the OP they are handicapping themselves. To me it is a extreme example of over-multiclassing and thankfully doesn't happen very often (I've never seen it to this extent).
In lesser extreme scenarios I would be willing to help my players overcome some of the drawbacks, but it would depend on the player's intent. However, it would come with the disclaimer that I will adjust the character down the road if I feel that it unbalanced my game.
The core rules are guidelines at my table and I am willing to listen to and work with my players in order to make the game exciting and fun for everyone (within reason). 12 class levels in different classes seems like overkill to me and I would wonder what the intent behind it was.
|
So I've searched through the boards and seen a few posts on this, but nothing official. Is there any ruling for whether multiclass characters get fractional BAB or not. For an extreme example consider the following character.
Alchemist 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Inquisitor 1 / Monk 1 / Oracle 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorceror 1 / Summoner 1 / Witch 1 / Wizard 1
Since none of these classes have a +1 BAB progression this would be a 12th level character with a BAB of 0. Using fractional bonuses you would add up all the levels that get 1/2 progression (3 * 1/2 = 1 1/2 BAB) and all the levels that get 3/4 progression (9 * 3/4 = 6 3/4), then either add those two and round down (6 3/4 + 1 1/2 = 8 1/4) for a BAB of 8, or, for simplicity's sake, round them down first and add for a slightly lower bonus of 1 + 6 = 7.
This is also an issue with saves, but I think it's less of an issue there than it is with BAB.
Could we please get an official ruling on this?
I could not resist. While, by RAW, that character would have a BAB of +0, it's saves would be a little high:
Fortitude = +10
Reflex = +8
Will = +20
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can handle fractions, sure; why not?
However, in this case you should apply fractions to saves as well (as has been stated).
Thus, you'd get a net BAB of
1/2 x poor Levels + 3/4 x moderate Levels + 1 x Good Levels (round down)
and Saves of
1/2 x good Levels + 1/3 x poor levels (round down), +2 if any of your classes has good progression.
Yes, it removes the effect of rounding down several times before addition, it also takes care of the Save inflation, at the cost of making calculations a tad more complicated.
On the other hand, you are already using fractions if employing variant favored class options, so I don't see the problem.
However, I doubt that there will be much happening RAW-wise, as the core mechanics of the game are geared towards simplicity.
If you can handle fractions, sure; why not?
However, in this case you should apply fractions to saves as well (as has been stated).
Thus, you'd get a net BAB of
1/2 x poor Levels + 3/4 x moderate Levels + 1 x Good Levels (round down)and Saves of
1/2 x good Levels + 1/3 x poor levels (round down), +2 if any of your classes has good progression.Yes, it removes the effect of rounding down several times before addition, it also takes care of the Save inflation, at the cost of making calculations a tad more complicated.
On the other hand, you are already using fractions if employing variant favored class options, so I don't see the problem.However, I doubt that there will be much happening RAW-wise, as the core mechanics of the game are geared towards simplicity.
I do use this rule, though I am usually the one calculating BAB and saves for my players, I know it is not complicated but even some fairly intelligent people have problems calculating with fractions.
Also I am inclined to make saves 1/2 level for poor saves to compensate for the lack of multi-classing/multi-classing benefit in pathfinder to keep saves on par for their level. It is also easier to calculate, saves are 1/2 level +2 if it is a good save in any of your classes. Makes saves less of an obvious weakness by metagaming as well.
I dunno. I know that part of the reasoning behind not having fractional BAB explicitly written out is for simplicity and keep the progression from getting cluttered.
But when you think about it- the fact that the saves get consequently boosted and the BAB drops kind of balance each other out.
Do kind of wish there was a feat that allowed you to treat your first attack each round as if your BAB was equal to your HD. This alone would make cross classing more viable.
And I always thought cross classing should be the avenue one takes to make neat hybrids like spell swords or arcane rogues or shamanistic barbarians ... rather than a cascade of new base classes.
I do use this rule, though I am usually the one calculating BAB and saves for my players, I know it is not complicated but even some fairly intelligent people have problems calculating with fractions.If you can handle fractions, sure; why not?
However, in this case you should apply fractions to saves as well (as has been stated).
Thus, you'd get a net BAB of
1/2 x poor Levels + 3/4 x moderate Levels + 1 x Good Levels (round down)and Saves of
1/2 x good Levels + 1/3 x poor levels (round down), +2 if any of your classes has good progression.Yes, it removes the effect of rounding down several times before addition, it also takes care of the Save inflation, at the cost of making calculations a tad more complicated.
On the other hand, you are already using fractions if employing variant favored class options, so I don't see the problem.However, I doubt that there will be much happening RAW-wise, as the core mechanics of the game are geared towards simplicity.
Yes, this is me at my table. One should not underestimate the number of very intelligent people who are math handicapped! It boggles the mind! But for some of us it is easy, and there's usually one at every table. Just have them do the auditing for everyone.
We adopted fractional BAB on our own, long before UA. It just makes sense, and as others have said, the math is there just waiting to be used. It is used with every class already; as they pile up levels, the fractions are added together to calculate the bonus. All we're doing is crossing the class barrier.
I have used Factional BaB and Save for 7 years.
We only give 2 1/2 bonus once per save per PC.
And if you can not do the math find new game.... Go pay video game or some thing else.
It a optinal rule.
|
|
RAW, BAB are whole numbers, not fractions. 0x12 = 0. Nothing official to rule here. It is pretty clear.
So I've searched through the boards and seen a few posts on this, but nothing official. Is there any ruling for whether multiclass characters get fractional BAB or not. For an extreme example consider the following character.
Alchemist 1 / Bard 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Inquisitor 1 / Monk 1 / Oracle 1 / Rogue 1 / Sorceror 1 / Summoner 1 / Witch 1 / Wizard 1
Since none of these classes have a +1 BAB progression this would be a 12th level character with a BAB of 0. Using fractional bonuses you would add up all the levels that get 1/2 progression (3 * 1/2 = 1 1/2 BAB) and all the levels that get 3/4 progression (9 * 3/4 = 6 3/4), then either add those two and round down (6 3/4 + 1 1/2 = 8 1/4) for a BAB of 8, or, for simplicity's sake, round them down first and add for a slightly lower bonus of 1 + 6 = 7.
This is also an issue with saves, but I think it's less of an issue there than it is with BAB.
Could we please get an official ruling on this?
Personally I believe there should be penalties for stacking that many multi-class levels. Arriving at level 12 with a BAB of +0 is no one's fault but the person playing the character.
If someone arrived at my table and slapped down a character sheet with twelve classes as described by the OP, I would have no sympathy for them. Take your BAB +0 or roll a new character.
Multi-classing is meant to provide a character with more options, sure, but in my opinion it is not intended to create a swiss army knife of skills on a single character sheet.
Even if you use fractional BAB to give this character a boost to BAB, he would still be pretty hopeless as a 12th level character. The saying about being a jack of all trades and master of none would apply with a vengeance here. No matter how you tweak things, a character with one level in each of 12 classes would be pretty hopeless.
Opinions on the matter aside for the moment, let me see if I understand what it us you actually want:
There is a contest you wish to participate in. It requires you to build a Pathfinder character of a fair level, one that could reasonably have a lot of multiclassing. You want to bring a character that does said multiclassing, but do not like the BAB that gives you. The contest only uses rules officially published by Paizo for Pathfinder, not using any other open source 3.5 material, therefore there is no fractional BAB/Saves allowed from Unearthed Arcana. You want Paizo to release something official, effectively personally endorsing the use of the fraction rules, so that your character will not have such a low BAB in said contest.
The fact that you are bringing this forth with the seeming primary backing of making your character more "feasible" in your eyes for a particular contest is selfish. You're not suggesting this to improve the system, you're bringing it up because you don't like the rules as written because it makes the character you want to bring for a contest have a really low BAB. As you've stated yourself, you want Paizo to make some sort of offical announcement regarding the inclusion of fractional BAB/Saves so that your character won't have such a low BAB in the contest.
Seriously, just follow the rules as written if it's for a contest. If they don't allow fractional stats because it isn't published within Pathfinder, and you don't think your largely multiclassed character can compete due to low BAB, then don't bring it. Make something that can compete within the already established rules. Asking Paizo to make something "official" just so you can bring your particular character to a particular contest is a bit extreme.
The other thing to consider is that even if it gets published as an optional rule, there's no guarantee that the contest will choose to use that option - after all, it's optional. Showing up with a character built on this optional set of rules would be no more acceptable than showing up with one which uses the wound/vitality system while everyone else uses standard hp, or one which has hero points when everyone else doesn't.
Conversely, if the contest wants to use fractional BAB, then it's free to say that characters should be built with fractional BAB, regardless of what the official rules are (unless it's PFS).
So asking for an optional rule won't help, and changing it as the default rule is not something that can be done in errata - it's the kind of thing that has to be done at edition change (even a "minor" one such as 3.0 -> 3.5).