D&D 4E I like 4E math.

[Jhaelen]

If it's a house rule, it's the most common one I know of. I don't think anyone thinks it's right that a rogue 2/cleric 1 should have a BAB of 1 instead of 2 when they have the same BAB progression.

Well, it is kinda balanced because of the stacking saving throw bonuses. I've considered counting fractions - but only very shortly. Basically it helps multiclassing and 'one-level-dips' of which I already see more than enough in my games. I'd much rather encourage my players to stay true to a single class.

 

[delericho]

Wow, really?

Yep.

The most common place I see this is in the rogue/cleric or similar who says, "They have the same progression, so I'll just use one of the tables and look up the BAB for my character level." But I have also seen people wanting to count the half-BAB from a wizard level to kick their rogue BAB up by a point.

Mathematically, fractional BAB (and particularly saves) is a bit more elegant that the RAW. However, they are also a bit more complex. In some cases, fractional progressions also adjust the level at which a character can make the prerequisites for a feat or prestige class (for example, a +8 Fort save is possible at 4th level by the book, but takes much longer to attain with fractional saves, as those initial +2 bonuses at first level wouldn't accumulate).

It should also be noted that 3e has a couple of small holes in the multiclassing maths due to max hit points at 1st level and quadruple skill points at 1st level. As a result of these, a Rogue 1/Wizard 1 is significantly better than a Wizard 1/Rogue 1.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wow, really? I'm shocked.

The most common place I see this is in the rogue/cleric or similar who says, "They have the same progression, so I'll just use one of the tables and look up the BAB for my character level." But I have also seen people wanting to count the half-BAB from a wizard level to kick their rogue BAB up by a point.

I'm surprised this isn't general practice, actually!

I am aware of this practice, but our group actually doesn't use it, either! I guess we mostly avoided these multiclassing of low-BAB characters, or ensured that we always multiclassed "sensible" (no Wizard7/Loremaster3, but Wizard8/Loremaster2)

 

[sirwmholder]

...detailed example...

So basically you Gestalt the modifiers then add them to the unified progression chart.

Seems easy enough...
William Holder

 

[Keenath]

So basically you Gestalt the modifiers then add them to the unified progression chart.

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yeah, I guess so.

 

[Ipissimus]

Well, part of the problem is keeping it simple. The unbelieveably enormous headache with fractions in roleplaying games is whether you round up or round down. Funnily enough, most players believe that you should always round up but most DMs believe that you should round down. The player wants to squeeze every last drop of power out of a build, the DM wants to limit power creep and rules hacking as much as possible. You can't count the fraction (eg, BAB +14 1/3) because if you do that you might as well round up anyway.

Ok, so lets say you manage to come to a compromise and round off to the nearest whole number. What do you do when you have a 1/2 BAB? You're back to where you started because even mathematics doesn't have a hard or fast rule for that.

Sticking to the listed scores avoids a whole heap of arguing and wasted time. And 4E's taken the whole argument and binned it, for which I am eternally grateful.

 

[Lackhand]

Well, part of the problem is keeping it simple. The unbelieveably enormous headache with fractions in roleplaying games is whether you round up or round down. Funnily enough, most players believe that you should always round up but most DMs believe that you should round down. The player wants to squeeze every last drop of power out of a build, the DM wants to limit power creep and rules hacking as much as possible. You can't count the fraction (eg, BAB +14 1/3) because if you do that you might as well round up anyway.

Ok, so lets say you manage to come to a compromise and round off to the nearest whole number. What do you do when you have a 1/2 BAB? You're back to where you started because even mathematics doesn't have a hard or fast rule for that.

Sticking to the listed scores avoids a whole heap of arguing and wasted time. And 4E's taken the whole argument and binned it, for which I am eternally grateful.

Mathematics has *several* hard and fast rules, but the most fair to both DM and PC is probably banker's rounding -- round to the nearest even number, which has the nice advantage of pushing suitably small values to 0, anyway.