A quick question about BAB [Archive] - Wizards Community

A quick question about BAB [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ian0311
09-16-07, 01:23 PM Do you go by the chart or the progression?

A level 1 Scout/Level 1 Rogue would have +1 (3/4+3/4) if you go by the progression, but, by the chart, only +0.

I don't much care, but a fellow player and I are having a discussion and we can't come to an agreement.
NineInchNall
09-16-07, 01:25 PM By the chart. The "progression', as you put it, is technically behind the scenes.
Ian0311
09-16-07, 01:28 PM All right, thank you.
StevenO
09-16-07, 01:53 PM By RAW you go by the chart (0+0=0).

The Unearthed Arcana presents the variation that uses partial BAB (and saves as well) for leveling that ability. In many ways I'd rather use the charts despite not being as "accurate" as they could be. Getting hit with the BAB loss can discourage power builds dipping into a class along with keeping the bookwork simpler.
kalstrand
09-16-07, 02:22 PM There is an alternate rule in Unearthed Arcana that goes by the progression if you are interested.
EjoThims
09-16-07, 04:00 PM Even before UA I went by the progression, since it was obvious they were both 3/4 BAB classes and the beginning of the PHB classes section lists progression for each type of class by level when it comes to BAB and saves.
InkBlot
09-16-07, 04:27 PM You go by the progression, BUT you round down at each level.

For example, a first level bard has 3/4 of a point of BAB. Round down. He has 0 BAB.

The bard adds a level of monk, which gives him 3/4 BAB. 0 + 3/4 = 3/4. Round down. He has 0 BAB.

You do this because the charts get mucky once your BAB hits +6. It doesn't matter if the chart says a 6th level fighter has two attacks, if your 6th level fighter has 6 more levels of barbarian also. That fighter6/barbarian6 has a BAB of +12 and three attacks on a full attack.

The charts only hold up if you never multiclass. Refraining from multiclassing greatly limits the variety of character concepts you can pull off.
EjoThims
09-16-07, 08:17 PM You go by the progression, BUT you round down at each level.

This would achieve identical results to the UA rules, except that you're rounding wrong.

3/4+3/4=1 1/2, which rounds down to 1.
ShinAkuma2
09-16-07, 10:25 PM This would achieve identical results to the UA rules, except that you're rounding wrong.

3/4+3/4=1 1/2, which rounds down to 1.

No, in this case, you are rounding wrong, because you round at every level, not at the end.

3/4ths in one class rounds to 0, 3/4ths in another class rounds to 0, and 0+0=0.

You are using the UA variant OR just looking at advancing in one class, which are meant to achieve the same results.
EjoThims
09-16-07, 10:47 PM No, in this case, you are rounding wrong, because you round at every level, not at the end.

3/4ths in one class rounds to 0, 3/4ths in another class rounds to 0, and 0+0=0.

You are using the UA variant OR just looking at advancing in one class, which are meant to achieve the same results.

Actually, I'm looking at advancing by the progression on page 22 of your 3.5 PHB.

The table where base saves and BAB broken down by Good/Poor and Good/Average/Poor.

So many people forget this table exists, but it clearly shows that two levels in average BAB progressing classes net a BAB of 1, and this is how I've always done it, even before UA came out.
Merestil Haye
09-17-07, 06:23 AM Actually, I'm looking at advancing by the progression on page 22 of your 3.5 PHB.

The table where base saves and BAB broken down by Good/Poor and Good/Average/Poor.

So many people forget this table exists, but it clearly shows that two levels in average BAB progressing classes net a BAB of 1, and this is how I've always done it, even before UA came out.This is not the way it works.

The PHB explains how to calculate the stats for a multiclass character on page 59. WHen it discusses BAB it says that you add the BAB acquired from each class.

A Cleric 5/Monk 5/Rogue 5 does not have 15 levels in 3/4-BAB classes. The character has five levels in each of three 3/4-BAB classes.

Cleric : 5*3/4 = 3.75, round down to 3.
Monk : 5*3/4 = 3.75, round down to 3.
Rogue : 5*3/4 = 3.75, round down to 3.
Total : +9

NOT

15*3/4=11.25, round down to 11.

So you have been using the UA variant all this time - but it is still a variant, and not the way the PHB tells you to calculate your BAB and base save modifiers.
Bihlbo
09-17-07, 12:00 PM ...the charts get mucky once your BAB hits +6. It doesn't matter if the chart says a 6th level fighter has two attacks, if your 6th level fighter has 6 more levels of barbarian also. That fighter6/barbarian6 has a BAB of +12 and three attacks on a full attack.

You're right, if you go by the chart alone. The fighter6/barbarian6 would have +12/+2 if you just went blindly by the chart.

However, that is not how iterative attacks work. You gain a -5 iterative attack anytime that your BAB would allow that attack to have a positive base modifier (i.e. at every BAB divisible by 5, +1). That it is listed on the BAB progression chart at all is merely for ease of reference - you get iterative attacks wholly separate from what the charts say.
EjoThims
09-17-07, 12:58 PM So you have been using the UA variant all this time - but it is still a variant, and not the way the PHB tells you to calculate your BAB and base save modifiers.

Exactly.

Though Inkblot's wording confsued me on what his example was meant to demonstrate.

And the system on PHB 59 is flawed. It punishes all poor/average BAB classes for multiclassing while good BAB classes have no penalty, and it actually rewards dipping for classes with 2/3 or 3/3 good saves.
Ian0311
09-17-07, 02:01 PM Hm...

All right then. So what's the general agreement on this matter? Should we nerf our <1 BAB characters as the PHB says or should we go by the variant? The variant seems nicer...
Merestil Haye
09-17-07, 02:45 PM Exactly.

Though Inkblot's wording confsued me on what his example was meant to demonstrate.

And the system on PHB 59 is flawed. It punishes all poor/average BAB classes for multiclassing while good BAB classes have no penalty, and it actually rewards dipping for classes with 2/3 or 3/3 good saves.That is not a "flaw" - it is the way the system was designed.
EjoThims
09-17-07, 03:03 PM Whether or not that was the intent of the system, it's still a flawed basis for a system.

The original polymorph is as they designed it as well.

They wouldn't have offered the UA alternative if they didn't see this.

Hell, the biggest flaw with multiclassing is that the higher level abilities of core classes just aren't that attractive. And they've been attempting to fix that with altnerate class features for a while.

I still think the variant is not only more forgiving, but easier as well.

Plus it eliminates dipping for saves.
InkBlot
09-17-07, 07:46 PM I for one like that multiclass characters have higher saves. It gives them more survivability, even if they can't fight back quite as hard (unless you really know what you're doing). It's not equal compensation for what they lose out on, but it's something and it does make multiclassed characters feel different from single class characters.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ian0311 09-16-07, 01:23 PM	Do you go by the chart or the progression? A level 1 Scout/Level 1 Rogue would have +1 (3/4+3/4) if you go by the progression, but, by the chart, only +0. I don't much care, but a fellow player and I are having a discussion and we can't come to an agreement.
NineInchNall 09-16-07, 01:25 PM	By the chart. The "progression', as you put it, is technically behind the scenes.
Ian0311 09-16-07, 01:28 PM	All right, thank you.
StevenO 09-16-07, 01:53 PM	By RAW you go by the chart (0+0=0). The Unearthed Arcana presents the variation that uses partial BAB (and saves as well) for leveling that ability. In many ways I'd rather use the charts despite not being as "accurate" as they could be. Getting hit with the BAB loss can discourage power builds dipping into a class along with keeping the bookwork simpler.
kalstrand 09-16-07, 02:22 PM	There is an alternate rule in Unearthed Arcana that goes by the progression if you are interested.
EjoThims 09-16-07, 04:00 PM	Even before UA I went by the progression, since it was obvious they were both 3/4 BAB classes and the beginning of the PHB classes section lists progression for each type of class by level when it comes to BAB and saves.
InkBlot 09-16-07, 04:27 PM	You go by the progression, BUT you round down at each level. For example, a first level bard has 3/4 of a point of BAB. Round down. He has 0 BAB. The bard adds a level of monk, which gives him 3/4 BAB. 0 + 3/4 = 3/4. Round down. He has 0 BAB. You do this because the charts get mucky once your BAB hits +6. It doesn't matter if the chart says a 6th level fighter has two attacks, if your 6th level fighter has 6 more levels of barbarian also. That fighter6/barbarian6 has a BAB of +12 and three attacks on a full attack. The charts only hold up if you never multiclass. Refraining from multiclassing greatly limits the variety of character concepts you can pull off.
EjoThims 09-16-07, 08:17 PM	You go by the progression, BUT you round down at each level. This would achieve identical results to the UA rules, except that you're rounding wrong. 3/4+3/4=1 1/2, which rounds down to 1.
ShinAkuma2 09-16-07, 10:25 PM	This would achieve identical results to the UA rules, except that you're rounding wrong. 3/4+3/4=1 1/2, which rounds down to 1. No, in this case, you are rounding wrong, because you round at every level, not at the end. 3/4ths in one class rounds to 0, 3/4ths in another class rounds to 0, and 0+0=0. You are using the UA variant OR just looking at advancing in one class, which are meant to achieve the same results.
EjoThims 09-16-07, 10:47 PM	No, in this case, you are rounding wrong, because you round at every level, not at the end. 3/4ths in one class rounds to 0, 3/4ths in another class rounds to 0, and 0+0=0. You are using the UA variant OR just looking at advancing in one class, which are meant to achieve the same results. Actually, I'm looking at advancing by the progression on page 22 of your 3.5 PHB. The table where base saves and BAB broken down by Good/Poor and Good/Average/Poor. So many people forget this table exists, but it clearly shows that two levels in average BAB progressing classes net a BAB of 1, and this is how I've always done it, even before UA came out.
Merestil Haye 09-17-07, 06:23 AM	Actually, I'm looking at advancing by the progression on page 22 of your 3.5 PHB. The table where base saves and BAB broken down by Good/Poor and Good/Average/Poor. So many people forget this table exists, but it clearly shows that two levels in average BAB progressing classes net a BAB of 1, and this is how I've always done it, even before UA came out.This is not the way it works. The PHB explains how to calculate the stats for a multiclass character on page 59. WHen it discusses BAB it says that you add the BAB acquired from each class. A Cleric 5/Monk 5/Rogue 5 does not have 15 levels in 3/4-BAB classes. The character has five levels in each of three 3/4-BAB classes. Cleric : 53/4 = 3.75, round down to 3. Monk : 53/4 = 3.75, round down to 3. Rogue : 53/4 = 3.75, round down to 3. Total : +9 NOT 153/4=11.25, round down to 11. So you have been using the UA variant all this time - but it is still a variant, and not the way the PHB tells you to calculate your BAB and base save modifiers.
Bihlbo 09-17-07, 12:00 PM	...the charts get mucky once your BAB hits +6. It doesn't matter if the chart says a 6th level fighter has two attacks, if your 6th level fighter has 6 more levels of barbarian also. That fighter6/barbarian6 has a BAB of +12 and three attacks on a full attack. You're right, if you go by the chart alone. The fighter6/barbarian6 would have +12/+2 if you just went blindly by the chart. However, that is not how iterative attacks work. You gain a -5 iterative attack anytime that your BAB would allow that attack to have a positive base modifier (i.e. at every BAB divisible by 5, +1). That it is listed on the BAB progression chart at all is merely for ease of reference - you get iterative attacks wholly separate from what the charts say.
EjoThims 09-17-07, 12:58 PM	So you have been using the UA variant all this time - but it is still a variant, and not the way the PHB tells you to calculate your BAB and base save modifiers. Exactly. Though Inkblot's wording confsued me on what his example was meant to demonstrate. And the system on PHB 59 is flawed. It punishes all poor/average BAB classes for multiclassing while good BAB classes have no penalty, and it actually rewards dipping for classes with 2/3 or 3/3 good saves.
Ian0311 09-17-07, 02:01 PM	Hm... All right then. So what's the general agreement on this matter? Should we nerf our <1 BAB characters as the PHB says or should we go by the variant? The variant seems nicer...
Merestil Haye 09-17-07, 02:45 PM	Exactly. Though Inkblot's wording confsued me on what his example was meant to demonstrate. And the system on PHB 59 is flawed. It punishes all poor/average BAB classes for multiclassing while good BAB classes have no penalty, and it actually rewards dipping for classes with 2/3 or 3/3 good saves.That is not a "flaw" - it is the way the system was designed.
EjoThims 09-17-07, 03:03 PM	Whether or not that was the intent of the system, it's still a flawed basis for a system. The original polymorph is as they designed it as well. They wouldn't have offered the UA alternative if they didn't see this. Hell, the biggest flaw with multiclassing is that the higher level abilities of core classes just aren't that attractive. And they've been attempting to fix that with altnerate class features for a while. I still think the variant is not only more forgiving, but easier as well. Plus it eliminates dipping for saves.
InkBlot 09-17-07, 07:46 PM	I for one like that multiclass characters have higher saves. It gives them more survivability, even if they can't fight back quite as hard (unless you really know what you're doing). It's not equal compensation for what they lose out on, but it's something and it does make multiclassed characters feel different from single class characters.