As I see it, the possibility to refuse classification as "too uncertain" is the whole point of choosing a threshold (as opposed to assigning the class with highest predicted probability).
Of course, you should have some justification for putting the threshold to 0.5: you may also put it up to 0.9 or any other value that is reasonable.
You describe a setup with mutually exclusive classes (closed-world problem). "No class reaches the threshold" can always happen as soon as that threshold is higher than 1/$n_{classes}$, i.e. the same problem occurs in a 2-class problem with threshold, say, 0.9. For threshold = 1/$n_{classes}$ it could happen in theory, but in practice it is highly unlikely.
So your problem is not related (just more pronounced) to the 3-class set-up.
To your second question: you can compute ROC curves for any kind of continuous output scores, they don't even need to claim that they are probabilities. Personally, I don't calibrate, because I don't want to waste another test set on that (I work with very restricted sample sizes). The shape of the ROC anyways won't change.
Answer to your comment:
The ROC conceptually belongs to a set-up that in my field is called single-class classification: does a patient have a particular disease or not. From that point of view, you can assign a 10% probability that the patient does have the disease. But this does not imply that with 90% probability he has something defined - the complementary 90% actually belong to a "dummy" class: not having that disease. For some diseases & tests, finding everyone may be so important that you set your working point at a threshold of 0.1. Textbook example where you choose an extreme working point is HIV test in blood donations.
So for constucting the ROC for class A (you'd say: the patient is A positive), you look at class A posterior probabilities only. For binary classification with probability (not A) = 1 - probability (A), you don't need to plot the second ROC as it does not contain any information that is not readily accessible from the first one.
In your 3 class set up you can plot a ROC for each class. Depending on how you choose your threshold, no classification, exactly one class, or more than one class assigned can result. What is sensible depends on your problem. E.g. if the classes are "Hepatitis", "HIV", and "broken arm", then this policy is appropriate as a patient may have none or all of these.
Best Answer
The intercept in a logistic regression model is the log odds of a "success" when all the predictor variables are at 0. This means that changing the intercept will change the "baseline" probability for a "success". One way to do this is to center your predictor variables around a meaningful value (the value at which you want to set the probability) then fit the model using the centered predictors. Change the intercept to the log odds of a success that you are interested in (0 for p=0.5). If you want the model to be back on the original scale (not centered), then it is just algebra to work out the correct intercept.
Just be careful interpreting/using/sharing this model.
Another option for classification is to use Linear Discriminant Analysis (lda) which under certain assumptions is very similar to logistic regression. The
ldafunction in the MASS package has an argument for specifying a prior probability of class membership. This may be a more straight forward way of accomplishing what you are trying to do.