Optimization and XP penalty

[TheDarkSaint]

I see lots of cool optimization ideas floating around here for different PrC's. Some are really great role playing ideas and have given me great themes for my current game.

However, I'm not really sure how people are getting around the 20% xp penalty for having a class more than 2 levels away from another class. Is this just a par for course? I'm not sure I could call it optimized if I'm loosing 20% of my xp every time I'm awarded some.

Am I missing something?

[Boci]

XP penalty doesn't apply to PrCs. Some groups don't even use the rules for base classes, but that's a houserule.

[Curmudgeon]

As Boci pointed out, prestige classes don't incur an XP penalty. (That's because the Player's Handbook, where this multiclassing rule is, is the primary source for base classes, but it's the Dungeon Master's Guide which sets the rules for PrCs.) But yeah, a lot of the "optimized" builds you see are dependent on a house rule removing the multiclassing XP penalty for base classes; without that, the builds fail.

[Sgt. Cookie]

I don't think they fail, they just take longer to achive the desired affect.

[Namfuak]

Some builds take it into account, and some don't. If you do not house rule it away, it just makes humans that much sexier as a race. The other thing to consider is that since it only applies to base classes, and most deviations (dips) from a main class into another class only add 2 levels, you will very rarely run into problems as long as your main class is your favored class (and if you are optimizing with only core races, you will definitely be a human, so that's every time).

[Curmudgeon]

They fail to be optimized, is what I meant. But some of them fail absolutely: get to 100% XP penalty and no advancement is ever possible under the rules.

[Coidzor]

Am I missing something?

It's one of the most generally agreed upon rules that is made of raw, elemental stupidity in the game and one of the first to get kicked and one of the few that people online will encourage people to get rid of in their own games.

[Big Fau]

Originally, in 3.0, there was an exception to the Multiclassing rules for PrCs. For some unknown reason, this rule was edited out by mistake (as several developers for 3.5 have stated during various interviews). This was clarified in the FAQ (and is one of a handful of FAQ rulings that is almost unanimously agreed to be for the greater good of the game).

[Tyndmyr]

They fail to be optimized, is what I meant. But some of them fail absolutely: get to 100% XP penalty and no advancement is ever possible under the rules.

[Citation Please]

Seriously, the amount of work you'd have to do to make such a build would basically ensure it's already terrible.

[Glimbur]

[Citation Please]

Seriously, the amount of work you'd have to do to make such a build would basically ensure it's already terrible.

Well, you could go Rogue 1 Fighter 4 Barbarian 4 Ranger 4 Paladin (of Freedom) 4 Warblade 4, as an elf or something else with a useless favored class. It's kind of defensible in that you have mostly full BAB and some sneak attack, but it's also silly in that you can't gain XP. As a caster it would be silly to have so many base classes that you can't advance, but many melee and skill classes are front-loaded so dipping is more attractive.

[Phaederkiel]

It's one of the most generally agreed upon rules that is made of raw, elemental stupidity in the game and one of the first to get kicked and one of the few that people online will encourage people to get rid of in their own games.


Isn't that the same thing as to say that Feat taxes are stupid and should not exist? It is simply in the rules of the game. And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Would you explain exactly WHY it is made of raw, elemental stupidity instead of just stating so? I would be quite interested to know, since I thought about it some while ago and came to no conclusion.

The only point about it I really do not like is that it gives Humans even more Power.

[Particle_Man]

It's one of the most generally agreed upon rules that is made of raw, elemental stupidity in the game and one of the first to get kicked and one of the few that people online will encourage people to get rid of in their own games.

Well I keep it in my games. Guess that means I would have to watch the optimization boards to make sure they are RAW before I considered using them in my games. :smallbiggrin:

[Hirax]

And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP

...what? :smallconfused:

[Siosilvar]

Isn't that the same thing as to say that Feat taxes are stupid and should not exist? It is simply in the rules of the game. And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Would you explain exactly WHY it is made of raw, elemental stupidity instead of just stating so? I would be quite interested to know, since I thought about it some while ago and came to no conclusion.

Alright, so here's what I can tell from your post: You think classes are in-game constructs. Now, that's not wrong in and of itself, but it is unnecessarily restrictive. Classes can also just be seen as packages of abilities, in which case the multiclassing penalties makes little sense at all. After all, Ranger 10 and Rogue 1/Scout 2/Fighter 1/Swordsage 6 (to make up an example) could both fit the exact same character, but one is more effective, and both are less effective than a Druid 10 filling the same role. No reason to penalize more mundane characters if they want to get a bunch of abilities that fit their concept. If the abilities work together and make sense that you'd learn them together, why would you take a penalty for that synergy? Fighter 2/Scout 3/Ranger 1 is just a slightly different kind of ranger than a Ranger 6 is.

[Cyrion]

Well, you could go Rogue 1 Fighter 4 Barbarian 4 Ranger 4 Paladin (of Freedom) 4 Warblade 4, as an elf or something else with a useless favored class. It's kind of defensible in that you have mostly full BAB and some sneak attack, but it's also silly in that you can't gain XP. As a caster it would be silly to have so many base classes that you can't advance, but many melee and skill classes are front-loaded so dipping is more attractive.

You'd still gain XP here; you've only got 1 class that is not within 1 level of your highest class.

[Keld Denar]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/318834-3-5-multiclass-xp-penalty-20-yay-nay.html

This thread from En-World wraps it up nicely. Pay particular attention to the 2 posts from Wyvernhand (me). The two main points I make there are that multiclass penalties don't do what they were intended to do well (limit rediculous mukticlassing) and generally only serve to restrict non-casters rather than casters.

[tyckspoon]

You'd still gain XP here; you've only got 1 class that is not within 1 level of your highest class.

The leveling scheme would be slow and annoying- you'd have to do 1/1/1/1/1, 1/2/2/2/2, etc, but yeah, you can do this without triggering major XP penalties. In fact, it won't have any at all until it hits 1/3/2/2/2.

The most common build layout that might incur an XP penalty is the X/2 dip, where neither of the two is a Favored Class. However, that sort of thing most often happens with martial builds, and Fighter and Barbarian are *very* common favored classes for most races that often are used in those builds.. which means that practically speaking (such as, say, Dwarf Fighter 4/Warblade 2/PrCs) most functional builds *also* don't trip the XP penalties. You really do have to work at it to make it be a problem.

[The Glyphstone]

Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Druid 1/Ex-Barbarian 1/Cleric 1/Ex-Bard 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Paladin 1/Warrior 1/Adept 1/Aristocrat 1/Commoner 1/Expert 1/Monk 3? That's a 150% XP penalty.

[Big Fau]

Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Druid 1/Ex-Barbarian 1/Cleric 1/Ex-Bard 1/Ranger 1/Wizard 1/Sorcerer 1/Paladin 1/Warrior 1/Adept 1/Aristocrat 1/Commoner 1/Expert 1/Monk 3? That's a 150% XP penalty.

And in no way is that build capable of surviving for more than 2 encounters at level 18.


Hell, if it did it would actually lose XP.

[The Glyphstone]

And in no way is that build capable of surviving for more than 2 encounters at level 18.


Hell, if it did it would actually lose XP.

Exactly. As soon as it (somehow) levels up to Monk 3, the very next thing it kills de-levels it, at which point it can gain XP again.

[Person_Man]

IIRC there was some sort of penalty for mutliclassing in 2nd edition, which was pointlessly grandfathered into 3.0. I remember seeing a WotC articles stating that multiclassing = cherry picking, and that heavy multiclassing needed some sort of penalty to discourage it without banning it. But in general, it is just ignored.

[Socratov]

any sane DM dealing with multiclassing XP penalties (as in keeping to the rules) would use diminishing returns on the penalties. Just so you could never hit the 100% penalty, but do gain more each multiclassing that applies for the rule...

for those not knowing the rule of diminishing returns:

it basically stacks the penalties on the returns that the previous stacks leave

for instance:

1 penalty equals about 20%, 2 penalties equal 20%+0.2*80=36%, and so on, note this is not the economical wikipedia answer (not really that is), but a simpeler explanation.

What this seems to do is challenge dips more then extensive multiclassing, but consider this: when only dipping and thus cherrypicking and maybe abusing all the first levels for saves and bab it hurts early game more then say, multiclassing extensively and not gaining any classkills (which is when you are screwed royally anyway)

Mind you, I don't like counting XP and rather just handwaive it.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Isn't that the same thing as to say that Feat taxes are stupid and should not exist? It is simply in the rules of the game. And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Would you explain exactly WHY it is made of raw, elemental stupidity instead of just stating so? I would be quite interested to know, since I thought about it some while ago and came to no conclusion.

The only point about it I really do not like is that it gives Humans even more Power.

The difference between multiclassing XP penalties and feat taxes is primarily this: "feat taxes" exist - as a metagame construct, specifically, and not something written into the rules - because player characters have finite character-building resources. This is the approximate effect of feat taxes:

"I want to play a mighty warrior that can slay anything with his magic sword."
"Better take Power Attack then, unless you want to get fancy with bonus damage and multiple attacks."

XP penalties, on the other hand, exist in the rules specifically to make the game less fun to play and characters less fun to build, to decrease the variety of characters that are viable. XP penalties have pretty much this effect:

"I want to play an arcane knight with an effective mix of Paladin and Sorcerer abilities."
"Are you human?"
"No."
"Then **** you."

To me, that kind of defeats the main benefit 3.x multiclassing has over AD&D multiclassing - the sheer number of options and various things you can have if you work for it a little.

[Telonius]

Isn't that the same thing as to say that Feat taxes are stupid and should not exist? It is simply in the rules of the game. And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Would you explain exactly WHY it is made of raw, elemental stupidity instead of just stating so? I would be quite interested to know, since I thought about it some while ago and came to no conclusion.

The only point about it I really do not like is that it gives Humans even more Power.

Giving humans more power is one reason. Encouraging races to be locked into limiting concepts is another. Elves seldom multiclass outside of Wizard, Dwarves seldom multiclass outside of Fighter, Gnomes seldom multiclass out of ... wait, Bard? What in the world do Gnomes have to do with bards? ::grumble:: See, stuff like that. It limits players to concepts that in some cases (Elf-Wizard) don't make much mechanical sense, given the race's bonuses. Rogue would have made much better for Elves, given the dex bonus and search/secret door bonus. Other cases where neither the race's mechanics nor its fluff (Gnome-Bard) supports the rule.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, you could go Rogue 1 Fighter 4 Barbarian 4 Ranger 4 Paladin (of Freedom) 4 Warblade 4, as an elf or something else with a useless favored class. It's kind of defensible in that you have mostly full BAB and some sneak attack, but it's also silly in that you can't gain XP. As a caster it would be silly to have so many base classes that you can't advance, but many melee and skill classes are front-loaded so dipping is more attractive.

That's not really a build you're going to see in an optimization thread, though. It's already a bit awkwardly reaching for the problem, still gets xp, And it's a build that's entirely fixed by going human instead.

The following build is really pretty ridiculous.

[Particle_Man]

I think if you use that house rule, you should give something to the half-elves to compensate for it. I mean, humans are powerful enough, but half-elves need something. The "multi-class" thing was one of the few things they had going for them.

Hmmm, come to think of it, allowing half-elves, and only half-elves, to have "favoured class: all" might give them the boost they need.

[Coidzor]

^: Yes, half-elves do need to be redone so they're not one of the two worst races in the PHB.
Isn't that the same thing as to say that Feat taxes are stupid and should not exist?

No, disliking the multiclass XP penalty is more ubiquitous and more agreed upon than disliking, doing away with, or even believing in feat taxes. To the point where most people who admit to liking the rule eventually slip up and reveal that they don't really understand the system when called upon it in my experience.

That is to say, it's pretty heavily condemned.


It is simply in the rules of the game.

That doesn't really have anything to do with addressing my point, as I already pointed out its nature as a houserule, even if it is practically ubiquitous online, unless you're arguing that people are unthinking automatons who can't realize that horse pucky is horse pucky? :smallconfused:


And it heavily nerfs Concepts that are difficult if not impossible to RP, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

That's a good one. It doesn't really do much about those, really, and most things can be justified. One has to actually look and stretch and reach and change the setting away from the base assumption drastically in order to really create such a situation.

And, as said, it doesn't do jack to PrCs, and shouldn't.


Would you explain exactly WHY it is made of raw, elemental stupidity instead of just stating so? I would be quite interested to know, since I thought about it some while ago and came to no conclusion.

For starters, it doesn't do its "intended" job of limiting "absurd" multiclassing, the classes who would be multiclassing for increased power are already so weak the power bump is largely irrelevant, it creates unnecessary and unpleasant bookkeeping which doesn't add to the game, it doesn't make the game more enjoyable or balanced, and the only thing it really actually hobbles is "organic" character growth for non-NPCs and builds that only those who are being deliberately contrary or doing it entirely for the lulz would put together.

[Tyndmyr]

More ubiquitous and more agreed upon. To the point where most people who admit to liking them eventually slip up and reveal that they don't really understand the system when called upon it.

That is to say, they're pretty heavily condemned.

Im pretty ok with feat taxes. All options are not always equal. Nor should they be. Oh, you have little choice for your level 6 feat as a druid? Meh. You still have plenty of choices on your spell based char. Im not really sweating it.

[Coidzor]

Im pretty ok with feat taxes. All options are not always equal. Nor should they be. Oh, you have little choice for your level 6 feat as a druid? Meh. You still have plenty of choices on your spell based char. Im not really sweating it.

There, fixed it.

[Gavinfoxx]

There, fixed it.

I don't see what you changed...

[Rossebay]

Im pretty ok with feat taxes. All options are not always equal. Nor should they be. Oh, you have little choice for your level 6 feat as a druid? Meh. You still have plenty of choices on your spell based char. Im not really sweating it.

Yeah, but we're not comparing Druid to Wizard.

More like Wizard to fighter. The more powerful class is less taxed, and that's usually the complaint.


As far as XP Penalty goes, rarely do I see people dipping into that many base classes as it is. PrC's are usually better sources of new abilities.

[Coidzor]

I don't see what you changed...

I specified that the feat tax thing was a throwaway analogy rather than some kind of crux of my post, which is what Tyndmyr's post implied to me about his reading of my post.

[GnomeGninjas]

XP penalty doesn't apply to PrCs. Some groups don't even use the rules for base classes, but that's a houserule.

It never says that XP penalties don't apply to PrCs. Its just a very popular house rule, even the SRD says that they don't count.

[The Glyphstone]

It's not a houserule, it's an FAQ ruling (though some people treat that as a houserule). Excerpt:


Q: In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new Dungeon Master’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?

A: It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.

So the SRD incorporated it, and it's been considered standard.

[GnomeGninjas]

Oh, I hasn't read the FAQ and have been getting annoyed by people saying that it doesn't count for XP penalties for a long time now. Thanks for explaining.

[mikau013]

So why is it that generally people seem to dislike the 3.5 multi-classing penalty but like the pathfinder one?
Is it just because the 3.5 one is about xp? Would the 3.5 one be more liked if it instead lowered your hitpoints / skillpoints?

[The Glyphstone]

So why is it that generally people seem to dislike the 3.5 multi-classing penalty but like the pathfinder one?
Is it just because the 3.5 one is about xp? Would the 3.5 one be more liked if it instead lowered your hitpoints / skillpoints?

Because Pathfinder doesn't have a penalty, it has a bonus. Sure, you can choose to interpret a lack of a bonus as a de facto penalty, but the fact is that people are wired to like rewards and dislike punishments. Getting something 'extra' encourages PF characters to stay single-classed, and is the opportunity cost for rampant multiclassing. It's just elementary psychology.

Or in terms you might understand better, the 3.5 multiclass rules would be more liked if it gave single-class characters a %bonus to their XP gain, that multiclassed PCs missed out on.

[Garwain]

You are probably looking to hard for Elegance, when the builder aimed for Power.

A build that is dipping everywhere and results in great power, is an optimized build. A build that doens't multiclass so much (even with PrCs) scores high on Elegance. For me, the truly beautiful builds are those that can achieve great power while remaining elegant.

[Rejusu]

It's often just not an issue for most optimised builds. Most optimised builds dive into prestige classes at the first available opportunity and as others have noted PrC's aren't subject to multi-class penalties (it'd be a bit silly if they were considering they're supposed to supplant your original class). Plus a lot of builds use human, or keep their base class levels close together. I don't think I've seen many builds where it'd be an issue.

There's also things like the racial paragon classes which specifically state that levels in them are exempted from checks to determine multi-class XP penalties.

[DigoDragon]

My personal experience as a DM is that while some of the optimal builds out there may cause XP penalties, my players don't worry about being that optimal and the penalty rarely comes up anyway.

So if a player wants to do a Cleric 2/Druid 2/Rogue 2/Master of Masks 1, I totally let them do so.

[The Glyphstone]

My personal experience as a DM is that while some of the optimal builds out there may cause XP penalties, my players don't worry about being that optimal and the penalty rarely comes up anyway.

So if a player wants to do a Cleric 2/Druid 2/Rogue 2/Master of Masks 1, I totally let them do so.

Intentional irony? That's not the shade of blue people occasionally use as sarcasm font, so it's worth checking. (the irony, if unintentional, is that said build actually wouldn't have XP penalties anyways because the level spread is within 1 level).

[Averis Vol]

i don't employ XP penalties in my game because honestly? the PC's don't level til i want them to. i feel this is a better approach then the XP system, all my PC's can do whatever they like in terms of builds and my game can continue at a set level curve. though i do compensate with loot if they go above and beyond in their questing, and they seem to like it this way.

[Boci]

So why is it that generally people seem to dislike the 3.5 multi-classing penalty but like the pathfinder one?
Is it just because the 3.5 one is about xp? Would the 3.5 one be more liked if it instead lowered your hitpoints / skillpoints?

Because the PF one actually makes sense. In 3.5 an elf barbarian 2 / ranger 4 had XP benalties, but an elf paladin 2 / fighter 2 / cleric 1 / factotum 1 / warlock 2 wouldn't.

[Doug Lampert]

Because the PF one actually makes sense. In 3.5 an elf barbarian 2 / ranger 4 had XP benalties, but an elf paladin 2 / fighter 2 / cleric 1 / factotum 1 / warlock 2 wouldn't.

And in 3.x a human or half-ork Barbarian 3/Ranger 3/Fighter 1 has an XP penalty, while a dwarf doesn't, but a human or half-ork Barbarian 3/Ranger 1/Fighter 1 has no XP penalty while a dwarf with that build does.

Try to explain why the above makes sense! The only advantage to the 3.x system is that it almost never actually does anything in actual play.

And has been mentioned "Rewards" are also seen as better than punishments, even if in practice the PF system is actually more restrictive and results in more pidgeon-holing. (Seriously, who builds a PF sorcerer who's not human or something else with favored class any.)

DougL

[Particle_Man]

(Seriously, who builds a PF sorcerer who's not human or something else with favored class any.)

Um, in Pathfinder your first class is always your favoured class regardless of race. Half-elves get two favoured classes. So you can be a sorcerer of any race if you don't multi-class.

And anyhow, I had fun with a gnome sorcerer that used a lot of illusion spells. :smallcool:

[Particle_Man]

You are probably looking to hard for Elegance, when the builder aimed for Power.

A build that is dipping everywhere and results in great power, is an optimized build. A build that doens't multiclass so much (even with PrCs) scores high on Elegance. For me, the truly beautiful builds are those that can achieve great power while remaining elegant.

That is what I was looking for! Mind if I sig this?

[The Glyphstone]

Um, in Pathfinder your first class is always your favoured class regardless of race. Half-elves get two favoured classes. So you can be a sorcerer of any race if you don't multi-class.

And anyhow, I had fun with a gnome sorcerer that used a lot of illusion spells. :smallcool:

He's talking about the Human Sorcerer Alternate Favored Class option: +1 Spell Known of any level lower than the sorcerer's maximum for each level in Sorcerer you select.

3 extra Cantrips, 2 extra 1st through 7th level spells, and 3 extra 8th level spells by lvl20 is a pretty hefty bonus.

[Gavinfoxx]

I dunno. I consider the 3/2/10/5 builds pretty elegant.

For the record, that's 3 levels in 1 base class, 2 levels in another base class, 10 levels in a prestige class, filling it out, 5 levels in another prestige class, filling it out.

With the caveat that each and every class in the entire build support each other in useful ways, and form a single, cohesive concept.

[Keld Denar]

1/2/2/10/5 builds are also pretty elegant, imo.

[The Glyphstone]

2/3/4/5/6 builds are...mathematically elegant.:smallconfused:

[Suddo]

Can someone post a single build that breaks this rule? Almost all the builds I see, outside of stupid 1 Cloister Cleric stuff, don't break the rule. And even if they do they are most of the time Human, because its usually the best race before considering Favored Classes.
Lets take a look:
Dragonwrought Kobold Sorc 4 / Master Transmogrofer
Human Wiz 3 / Cleric 1 / Mystic Theurge
Dwarf Cloister Cleric 1 / Feat Rogue 1 / Barb 1 / Fighter 2 / Psy Warrior 2 / Frenzy Berserker 1 / Bear Warrior 1 / Fist of the Forest 3 / Warblade 1 / Unarmed Swordsage 1
None of those break the rule. The only people that really need to try to break it is melee and they don't usually need more than 2 in any base class (as shown above).
Casters don't want to lose spell levels so outside of PrCs they don't really want to multiclass.

Multiclass penalty is a band-aid for bad game design. Why do people dip 1 level of Mindbender? Because there's little reason not to. Why do they dip Fighter 2 instead of taking 2 more Barbarian Levels, because the returns on doing so are better.
Pathfinder tried, though not very well, to fix this problem by actually giving class features beyond level 2 that matter to class and capstones that were worth getting, in 3.5 there is almost no reason to take wizard 2 if you can just into a prestige class that increases caster levels (though usually this requires cheese) but even with level 6 wizard.
Compare Wizard 8 versus Wizard 5 / Rainbow Servant 3. The rainbow servant gets a slew of abilities and other things that the normal wizard doesn't.

[Big Fau]

A simple one: Elf Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 with Daring Outlaw.
A more complex one: Skarn Totemist 8/Barbarian 2/Totem Rager 10

[The Random NPC]

2/3/4/5/6 builds are...mathematically elegant.:smallconfused:

I prefer 0/1/1/2/3/5/8 for the most mathematically elegant.:smallbiggrin:

[Suddo]

A simple one: Elf Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 with Daring Outlaw.
A more complex one: Skarn Totemist 8/Barbarian 2/Totem Rager 10

See that's just the point though isn't it. Those aren't Top Tier holy crap there amazing builds. There just decent builds for a specific idea.
And the Elf Rogue one isn't even uber optimizied. I mean what is the main point of it? Is it to deal a lot of damage on Fortified (immune to sneak attack) targets?
Rogue 1 / Spell Thief 1 / Psionic Rogue 1 / Thug Fighter 2 / Wizard 1 / Abjurant Champion 4 / Arcane Trickster 10
You still have:
10d6 Sneak Attack
You lose:
Swashbuckler Stuff
You gain:
14th Level Wizard
Other things

The Totem Rager one is just unfortunate.