Should I Houserule Away with The Multiclass XP-penalty?

[DMwithoutPC's]

Basically all the title says. I am not very experienced DM playing with a group of players who know even less than me about D&D.

I ask this question because on this forum people often suggest builds which use three or four classes, not counting Prestige, and I just don't understand how they could work with the penalty’s as described in de PHB.

so I wonderd, what do you guys do?

Keep it or get rid of it?

(oh, we're playing 3.5)

[Deathslayer7]

Each race has a favored class which negates one multi-class penalty if you go into that favored class.

Otherwise it is less of a headache if you just get rid of it.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I say chuck it out the window (along with racial alignments but that's one houserule that I always implement, along with a bonus feat or extra skill point for half-elves and half-orcs).

[laeZ1]

I do.

If you want to keep favored classes, but do away with the XP penalty for multiclassing, take a leaf from Pathfinder: When you take your first level in your favored class, you choose (irrevocably) HP or Skill points. Every level of your favored class, you gain 1 additional HP or Skill point, depending on what you chose 1st level.

[tyckspoon]

forum people often suggest builds which use three or four classes, not counting Prestige

Keep in mind the penalty only applies when you have classes that are more than 1 level apart from each other, and your Favored Class doesn't count. So if you take, say, a Human, and make a build like Class X 2/Class Y 2/Class Z 2/Class A 10.. there is no multiclass penalty on that. But there *is* a penalty if you are doing an 'organic' progression and decide that events in the character's life warrant slipping a level in Rogue or something into your Wizard..

Which is why many people ditch the multiclass penalty. It does *not* discourage multiple dips and carefully planned builds, which would appear to be the intended purpose, and it *does* harm spontaneous development of a character, which is generally considered to be a bad thing by most of the people I've heard tender opinions on it.

[the_david]

Get rid of it. Multiclassing doesn't really make you X% more powerful, so it wouldn't be fair to penalize it like that.

Until the players start to maximize their saves. You might want to use the fractional saves rule from Unearthed Arcana when that happens.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Most people seem to play without it to the point were people feel the need to actually point out if they DO use it.

[Yora]

Multiclass XP-penalty? What Multiclass XP-Penalty?

Oh THAT multiclass XP-penalty!

Yes, you should totally ignore that. It's completely pointless.

[Another_Poet]

Yes, get rid of it.

I always favor reduced bookkeeping and smoother rules. If you want a penalty for multiclass (why?) make it a one-time XP payment they make when they first add a new class.

If you're worried about powergaming and strange class combinations, talk out of game to your players.

[DMwithoutPC's]

Yeah Nikita, I thought so to, but I wasn't sure so I wanted to check.

thanks every one for the imput, it seems to be unanimous so I'll get rid of it.

btw, my players have yet to master the complicated rules governing which die they should role in which situation (they keep trying to do damage with there d20) so I doubt it will be an issue soon :smallbiggrin:

[Rhynn]

Get rid of it. It makes no sense anyway (what it amounts to is permitting every elf to take a few levels of wizard to go with their main class, rather than making elves better wizards).

Replace it with the Conan d20 favored class rule: for every 5th level you take in your favored class (one class chosen at 1st level for humans and half-elves), you get a bonus feat.

The Pathfinder rule is okay, too.


Get rid of it. Multiclassing doesn't really make you X% more powerful, so it wouldn't be fair to penalize it like that.

Until the players start to maximize their saves. You might want to use the fractional saves rule from Unearthed Arcana when that happens.

IMO the fractional BAB and saves are always better anyway - sometimes they work out to the players' advantage (like, say, a wizard 1/rogue 1 getting BAB +1 instead of +0). Also, only give good saves the +2 bonus at first level once.

[Ashtagon]

Wait... there are people who play with that rule?

[The Random NPC]

I do.

If you want to keep favored classes, but do away with the XP penalty for multiclassing, take a leaf from Pathfinder: When you take your first level in your favored class, you choose (irrevocably) HP or Skill points. Every level of your favored class, you gain 1 additional HP or Skill point, depending on what you chose 1st level.

FYI, that isn't how Pathfinder does it. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes.html#_favored-class)

[Waspinator]

The better question is, does anyone actually use the muliclass XP penalty? It's probably the most ignored piece of RAW ever.

[laeZ1]

FYI, that isn't how Pathfinder does it. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes.html#_favored-class)

Favored Class
Each character begins play with a single favored class of his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level (including his first level) cannot be changed once made for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Prestige Classes) can never be a favored class.

Isn't that what I said:smallconfused:

[Karnith]

Favored Class
Each character begins play with a single favored class of his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level (including his first level) cannot be changed once made for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Prestige Classes) can never be a favored class.

Isn't that what I said:smallconfused:
You aren't locked into always getting HP or skill points based on your choice at your first level in your favored class. You get to choose which one you receive at each level in your favored class.

Each character begins play with a single favored class of his choosing—typically, this is the same class as the one he chooses at 1st level. Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank. The choice of favored class cannot be changed once the character is created, and the choice of gaining a hit point or a skill rank each time a character gains a level (including his first level) cannot be changed once made for a particular level. Prestige classes (see Prestige Classes) can never be a favored class.
(Emphasis mine)

[laeZ1]

Wow. You are absolutely correct. I've misread that every time.

:smallbiggrin: Thanks much!

[Alleran]

The better question is, does anyone actually use the muliclass XP penalty? It's probably the most ignored piece of RAW ever.
I don't, as evidenced by the fact that I actually had to go and look up how it works when I saw this topic.

[Karnith]

The better question is, does anyone actually use the muliclass XP penalty? It's probably the most ignored piece of RAW ever.
When I first started DMing, I enforced the XP penalty. I'm embarrassed to say that I kept to it for years before changing my mind.

[Jay R]

Measure rules changes by their effect. If you think the players aren't multi-classing enough, do away with the penalty.

Bu if your game is not being hurt by insufficient multi-classed characters, then there's no reason to change the rule.

[Big Fau]

You should keep the rule. It's perfectly logical to punish the dirty munchkin for dipping Fighter 2 with his Barbarian, while doing nothing to the player who takes Druid to 20. In fact, you should probably reward the latter player with bonus XP.


The rule is absolutely stupid. WotC created a brilliant mechanic, and then decided to nerf it for people using it intuitively even when it wasn't always a good choice.

[Karnith]

I do think it's funny that you can get penalized for taking dips in classes that make your character worse.

Wait, is that a Barbarian 15/Sorcerer 2? Egads, the brokenness! It must be stopped at all costs! Oh, you've got a Wizard 17? That's cool.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I ever thought the XP penalty was a good idea.

[Slipperychicken]

It's like the massive damage rule.

It's so awful, and so universally ignored, nobody even knows it exists and is practically a variant rule.

[NikitaDarkstar]

It's like the massive damage rule.

It's so awful, and so universally ignored, nobody even knows it exists and is practically a variant rule.

Now now, the idea behind the massive damage rule is all right actually, but my DM tends to prefer to run it with being a specific amount of your characters total hp (think it's like half hp or above) to be considered "massive damage". The XP Penalty for multi-classing doesn't even have an "all right" basic idea going for it. :p

[Alleran]

I do think it's funny that you can get penalized for taking dips in classes that make your character worse.

Wait, is that a Barbarian 15/Sorcerer 2? Egads, the brokenness! It must be stopped at all costs! Oh, you've got a Wizard 17? That's cool.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I ever thought the XP penalty was a good idea.
Are there actually any classes or appreciable shifts to power that might happen if there was a limit even on prestige classes, let alone base class multiclassing idiocy (your mentioned Barb 15/Sorc 2)? Hell, do prestige classes even count as multiclassing? :smallconfused:

Because if they don't, then I find it hilarious that a Wiz 5 / Inc 10 / IotSV 4 / Tainted Scholar 1 wouldn't take a penalty, but a Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 / Monk 2 / Barbarian 14 (feats, evasion, flurry of blows and Monk AC!) would.

[The Random NPC]

Prestige classes never count towards multiclassing penalties.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, the fact that prestige classes don't even count for it makes the rule REALLY badly written.

[Rhynn]

It's like the massive damage rule.

It's so awful, and so universally ignored, nobody even knows it exists and is practically a variant rule.

I've never had a problem with that rule in D&D 3E (though I rarely remember it), but it's the cornerstone of the combat balance in d20 Modern, Conan d20, and Call of Cthulhu d20.

[Trinoya]

I've never had a reason to house rule it really at all. I don't reward XP as a 'group' reward, so people can get different values, and to date I think I've had it only leave someone behind in level once...

Simply put: The worst thing that can happen with it is someone falls behind (which is part of the intention), but if you don't feel you want to deal with that or the issue of recalculating their XP then throw it out, or find other methods to mitigate it.

On a pure side note: There are legitimate ways in the game system to remove the penalty (though few in number). I know that one of the lures of Lyrist is in any game where the DM is a hardass on multiclassers is that it removes the penalty entirely.

[Yael]

Actually, I disagree with the ''ignore it'' comments above. The Multiclass XP-Penalty is a well though rule that keeps PCs in a sole line (or an specific build) without getting OP. If this ISN'T true, then think about the roleplaying.


Martainz: Il'l take my path as a fighter, yeah... But, what the hell? Il'l go cleric this time, I want to cast 5th level spells :D. Oh, Rogue you said? Barbarian? Wizard!! Artificer~~ Those are interesting jobs! But I would like to continue my path as fighter after all that, and maybe adding more divinity to myself as the cleric I will be.
You should remember that not all the rules are made-and-applied to combat only. Roleplaying is an important part of D&D (and a lot of ''roleplaying'' games... duh?), and the fact that gnomes are good being social as bards, and the elves are more used to study magic as wizards (which personally I don't know why...) is a story and roleplaying issue. Think about it.

Now, what I would suggest you to Houserule, is to change favored classes according to backgrounds or applying as the Tinker Gnome from DragonLance: ''The first class chosen by the gnome will be its favored class.''

[Rhynn]

Actually, I disagree with the ''ignore it'' comments above. The Multiclass XP-Penalty is a well though rule that keeps PCs in a sole line (or an specific build) without getting OP. If this ISN'T true, then think about the roleplaying.

Not a very strong argument when the classes don't necessarily represent in-world constructs of any sort, but rather only collections of mechanical abilities.

[hymer]

It seems to me the multiclass XP penalty is mostly there for aesthetic reasons, not game balance ones. Much like how you can't multiclass so easily as monk or paladin. I think it's a game technical reinforcement of a belief that there should be a limit to how many different directions one PC is headed at any one time.

[Rhynn]

It seems to me the multiclass XP penalty is mostly there for aesthetic reasons, not game balance ones. Much like how you can't multiclass so easily as monk or paladin. I think it's a game technical reinforcement of a belief that there should be a limit to how many different directions one PC is headed at any one time.

It's basically a 2E artifact. Older editions of D&D had a much more simplistic philosophy. Originally, the classes were just broad definitions: someone who fights is a fighter. Someone who uses magic is a magic-user. (Clerics are actually thought by some OSR buffs not to fit very well at all, and thieves are often downright hated as interlopers...)

It got a bit looser over time, with more and more classes that were more specialized, with more rules, and then kits, etc.

But 3E got multiclassing penalties as a relic of the old "you only have one class, ever, unless you're a demi-human and start out multi-classed with 1 or 2, or are a human and dual-class later, forever abandoning your old class" approach.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Actually, I disagree with the ''ignore it'' comments above. The Multiclass XP-Penalty is a well though rule that keeps PCs in a sole line (or an specific build) without getting OP. If this ISN'T true, then think about the roleplaying.


Martainz: Il'l take my path as a fighter, yeah... But, what the hell? Il'l go cleric this time, I want to cast 5th level spells :D. Oh, Rogue you said? Barbarian? Wizard!! Artificer~~ Those are interesting jobs! But I would like to continue my path as fighter after all that, and maybe adding more divinity to myself as the cleric I will be.
You should remember that not all the rules are made-and-applied to combat only. Roleplaying is an important part of D&D (and a lot of ''roleplaying'' games... duh?), and the fact that gnomes are good being social as bards, and the elves are more used to study magic as wizards (which personally I don't know why...) is a story and roleplaying issue. Think about it.

Now, what I would suggest you to Houserule, is to change favored classes according to backgrounds or applying as the Tinker Gnome from DragonLance: ''The first class chosen by the gnome will be its favored class.''

Uh no. That's a player problem, not an RP problem. The core problem is that D&D is a class based system, centered about various archetypes at best (and mechanical mumbo-jumbo at worst). A fleshed out character is far more than just an archetype, sure sometimes a single archetype and thus a single class is enough to support the character, but many times it's not. Especially not if you're the kind of player/group that likes to takes classes and feats for pure fluffy reasons, because they make sense for that characters story. Should you be penalized for playing your character instead of playing your characters archetype/class?

[Jay R]

Many of us old gamers consider the amount of multi-classing allowed in 3E and later versions to be excessive, even with that rule. That's because our approach is different. Nothing wrong with either approach, but both exist, and they are different.

If classes are merely collections of mix-and-match ability sets, then why not multi-class? Go ahead and dump the rule.

But if classes represent lifestyles - if a barbarian is somebody who grew up in a tribe in extreme conditions that breed extra toughness and a wizard is somebody who spent most of his early days indoors reading and studying - then combining them is missing the point.

So decide what you (and your players) think the game should represent, and make your decision based on that.

[BWR]

The only reason I can see for keeping the multiclassing penalty, other than some weird desire to stick to some of the sillier aspects of old school D&D, is if it were expanded to include prestige classes as well, to reduce the livel dipping that people use to build overpowered characters. Of course the players making such characters are more of a problem than the actual multiclassing rules.

Personally, it's never really come up for me as a player or GM, and in the games I've played it's always been ignored.

[Seharvepernfan]

I did away with it. I think players should be able to multiclass to their hearts content. I've never actually seen an overpowered multiclassed character in play. Just use good DM common sense and all will be okay.

[Talionis]

Keep in mind the penalty only applies when you have classes that are more than 1 level apart from each other, and your Favored Class doesn't count. So if you take, say, a Human, and make a build like Class X 2/Class Y 2/Class Z 2/Class A 10.. there is no multiclass penalty on that. But there *is* a penalty if you are doing an 'organic' progression and decide that events in the character's life warrant slipping a level in Rogue or something into your Wizard..

Which is why many people ditch the multiclass penalty. It does *not* discourage multiple dips and carefully planned builds, which would appear to be the intended purpose, and it *does* harm spontaneous development of a character, which is generally considered to be a bad thing by most of the people I've heard tender opinions on it.

I've never loved the XP is a river stuff. I like to keep my group in line and find ways to make all my characters level at the same time.

I would suggest only using it to nerf a particularly powerful progression and since that suggestion isn't very consistant, I'd say just throw it out.

[Venger]

Now now, the idea behind the massive damage rule is all right actually, but my DM tends to prefer to run it with being a specific amount of your characters total hp (think it's like half hp or above) to be considered "massive damage". The XP Penalty for multi-classing doesn't even have an "all right" basic idea going for it. :p

what?

if you're halfway competent, you should be dealing 50+ damage per hit before very long in this game. save or die versus every attack as soon as people hit midlevels? it'll just make combat even more rocket taggy than it already is.

[Greenish]

Many of us old gamers consider the amount of multi-classing allowed in 3E and later versions to be excessive, even with that rule. That's because our approach is different. Nothing wrong with either approach, but both exist, and they are different.

If classes are merely collections of mix-and-match ability sets, then why not multi-class? Go ahead and dump the rule.

But if classes represent lifestyles - if a barbarian is somebody who grew up in a tribe in extreme conditions that breed extra toughness and a wizard is somebody who spent most of his early days indoors reading and studying - then combining them is missing the point.Of course, the way multiclassing penalties work basically encourages dipping into lots of classes.

[Callin]

multiclass penalties, race restrictions, if a good argument alignment restrictions. have not used those... in forever actually. Been gaming and GMing off and on since 98. I dont think i have ever used/enforced those rules ever.

[Icewraith]

Multiclassing penalties are so bad that most characters from the literature (that aren't straight spellcaster) that end up statted in sourcebooks look completely ridiculous and/or are generally useless if you tried to use them in play or recreate them organically.

Use fractional BAB and saves. I let the players get the 2.5 in a particular save exactly once instead of only at first level.

[Urpriest]

There's also the fact that multiclassed and multi-PrC builds almost always have more flavor and better roleplaying hooks than single-classed builds. If two players presented these two characters, which would you expect to roleplay more: an Elven Fighter 12, or a Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Revenant Blade 5/Frenzied Berserker 2?

(Granted, neither of those builds suffers multiclassing penalties. This is more of a point about the roleplaying value of multiclassing in general.)

[The Random NPC]

Use fractional BAB and saves. I let the players get the 2.5 in a particular save exactly once instead of only at first level.

Nope. Every time you get first level in a class with a good save progression, you get +2.5 in that save. The example in the text clarifies it, by using a Cleric 5/ Fighter 2 that has a 7.5 Fort save, normally gained at 11th level.
EDIT:Oops, didn't see that it was your house-rule. My apologies.

[Lateral]

Nope. Every time you get first level in a class with a good save progression, you get +2.5 in that save. The example in the text clarifies it, by using a Cleric 5/ Fighter 2 that has a 7.5 Fort save, normally gained at 11th level.
EDIT:Oops, didn't see that it was your house-rule. My apologies.

Alternate rule, not house rule. It's in UA.

[TuggyNE]

Alternate rule, not house rule. It's in UA.

UA does have fractional saves/BAB, but what it does not do, so far as I remember, is remove the +2 to good saves every time you take a new class with that progression. That's the houserule here.

[ericp65]

Toss it out the window, and never give it another thought. I've never used it, myself.

[Hyde]

My group ignores it de facto because we use party xp- everyone hits the next level simultaneously.

It helps that we're playing pathfinder now and no such rule exists, and they've already dispensed with other things, like the xp for crafting rules.

I mean, we ignored it in straight 3.5, but you get the idea.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. I usually alter it. What I want the Multiclass XP penalty to reflect, it currently doesn't. And that's the usual 2/2/1/2/1/2/2 class progression thing. Which the rule does nothing against. So I usually houserule things so that you suffer XP penalties for Dipping but not for Multiclassing. I usually tweak it, but the gist is usually something like 25-33% penalty to XP if you take a new class, and the last class you leveled is less than or equal to 1/3 your levels.

So if you went Cleric 1, Wizard 1, Cleric 2, Wizard 2, etc, this wouldn't impact at all. If you went Cleric 3, Fighter 2, PrC 10, this wouldn't impact it either. But if you go something like Fighter 2, Barb 2, Ranger 2, PrC 2, starting from the PrC you'd be taking a hit.

I don't have a problem with the concept of the multiclass XP penalty. Seems fine to me. The idea that classes do things differently, and if you're learning from a bunch of classes you have to basically keep switching your mindset and skills... seems fine to me. Just the particulars of how it's implemented RAW don't. A barbarian and a Fighter should approach their skills differently, even if you just Grip and Rip with a two hander with both classes. Thre's that fundamental distinction in how they act and learn that means that your training from one should be hard to mesh together with your training with another. Possible, sure. But it'd be like setting up a foundation in the imperial measurement system, and then building walls in Metric. A pain in the ass. Possible, sure. But nothing quite fits right.

[Roog]

Possible, sure. But it'd be like setting up a foundation in the imperial measurement system, and then building walls in Metric. A pain in the ass. Possible, sure. But nothing quite fits right.

like using XP penalties

[ericp65]

It's well stated in rulebooks that the rules are only guidelines. Concepts and thematics should always take precedence to game-mech, when doing so enhances the player experience while delivering fairness to all involved in the game.

[Hyde]

Martainz: Il'l take my path as a fighter, yeah... But, what the hell? Il'l go cleric this time, I want to cast 5th level spells :D. Oh, Rogue you said? Barbarian? Wizard!! Artificer~~ Those are interesting jobs! But I would like to continue my path as fighter after all that, and maybe adding more divinity to myself as the cleric I will be.


Hold on- did this suggest to anyone else that maybe UJ thinks that you take whatever the class would get at your character level, rather than starting from first? Like, if your first level of cleric was at level eleven, you'd read the "level eleven" line for cleric and take those things?

Otherwise, I think I'm more confused than when I read this the first time.

[TuggyNE]

Hold on- did this suggest to anyone else that maybe UJ thinks that you take whatever the class would get at your character level, rather than starting from first? Like, if your first level of cleric was at level eleven, you'd read the "level eleven" line for cleric and take those things?

Otherwise, I think I'm more confused than when I read this the first time.

I completely overlooked that the first two times I read that post.

I have no idea what the deal is.

[Zaq]

You hardly need another voice saying "dump it" . . . but seriously, dump it.

[Fitz10019]

Roleplaying is an important part of D&D (and a lot of ''roleplaying'' games... duh?), and the fact that gnomes are good being social as bards, and the elves are more used to study magic as wizards (which personally I don't know why...) is a story and roleplaying issue. Think about it.


The tricky thing here is stereotypes. Should entire races be painted with one large brush each? For me, no, they shouldn't.

But if you do like stereotypes on your fantasy races, remember that PCs are individuals, special individuals, and the player should decide their personalities and goals.

---------

I don't apply XP penalties when I DM, and I removed the major mechanical differences between races in my houserules. I want players to choose build first, personality(-to-suit-the-build) second, and race(-to-suit-personality) third.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Urpriest
There's also the fact that multiclassed and multi-PrC builds almost always have more flavor and better roleplaying hooks than single-classed builds. If two players presented these two characters, which would you expect to roleplay more: an Elven Fighter 12, or a Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Revenant Blade 5/Frenzied Berserker 2?

Some of the absolute best roleplaying I've ever seen in a campaign came from players whose characters were single-classed and core-only. The quality and depth of the roleplaying depends on the player's skill at developing the character concept.

Claiming that a jumbled build leads to "better roleplaying" seems to ignore the player's abilities, personality and imagination altogether. A multi-whatever build gives you more things to account for, maybe, and a clever player could certainly flow it all together into a particular character.

But there's no reason why a good roleplayer with an interesting concept couldn't take a fighter and make it shine. I've seen this done with exactly this class--an elven fighter 12, believe it or not--and his interaction with my own character was some of the best roleplaying in the entire campaign.

I've also seen a very jumbled and "flavorful" build, with a genuinely interesting backstory and tremendous potential, roleplayed in a manner that barely deserves the name, with the character doing virtually nothing other than running around killing things and communicating in grunts, and the player not the slightest bit interested in character interaction or story development.

Complex builds don't automatically lead to stellar roleplaying--and there's no reason why a mechanically simpler build should suppress it. It all depends on the ability of the player to develop and convey the character he's dreamed up. Relying on an assortment of mechanical options to be your lodestone for roleplaying just seems to be missing the point.

[Greenish]

Claiming that a jumbled build leads to "better roleplaying" seems to ignore the player's abilities, personality and imagination altogether.

<snip>

Complex builds don't automatically lead to stellar roleplaying--and there's no reason why a mechanically simpler build should suppress it.

<snip>

Relying on an assortment of mechanical options to be your lodestone for roleplaying just seems to be missing the point.Hold your horses, that's not what he's saying.

[Gerrtt]

I get the intent, I like the intent. But I've also never played a character that ran into using it. The only thing that came close was the time I played a cleric/sorcerer/geomancer but I could choose cleric as my favored class, so it worked out.

I say trash it; if bookkeeping gets in the way of you or your players creating the concept you/they want, then why have it?

[WhatBigTeeth]

If Barbarian 1/Bard 1/Cleric 1/Druid 1/Fighter 1/Hexblade 1/Monk 1/Ninja 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 1/Rogue 1/Samurai 1/Scout 1/Sorcerer 1/Spellthief 1/Swashbuckler 1/Warlock 1/Warmage 1/Wizard 1/Wu Jen 1 doesn't take a multiclass penalty, but Fighter 18/Rogue 2 does, and Gnome still makes a better wizard than High Elf, it's pretty clear the rule has failed at whatever its intended purpose was, even before the calculating nightmare.

[Shining Wrath]

Yes. It's a stupid rule.

[Ashtagon]

A better replacement for that rule:

1) Use the Pathfinder bennies for favoured class rather than slaps for multi-classing, and
2) Cap characters to no more than 4 different classes total, of which no more than 2 can be prestige classes.

That rewards the favoured class, while still discouraging the more ridiculous examples of multi-classing.

[Greenish]

…and Gnome still makes a better wizard than High Elf, it's pretty clear the rule has failed at whatever its intended purpose was, even before the calculating nightmare.Wasn't Elf the Fighter/Wizard guy of one of the earlier editions (when races were classes)?


A better replacement for that rule:

2) Cap characters to no more than 4 different classes total, of which no more than 2 can be prestige classes.

That rewards the favoured class, while still discouraging the more ridiculous examples of multi-classing.Why?

Do you know how many 3 level PrCs there are? 25.

Do you know how many melee classes have worthwhile class features beyond the first few levels? No, I didn't count them.

[Doug Lampert]

It seems to me the multiclass XP penalty is mostly there for aesthetic reasons, not game balance ones. Much like how you can't multiclass so easily as monk or paladin. I think it's a game technical reinforcement of a belief that there should be a limit to how many different directions one PC is headed at any one time.

Human:
Fighter 10/Monk 2/Barbarian 1/Cleric 2/Ranger 1/Rogue 1/PrestigeClassA 2/PrestigeClassB 1

No XP penalty.

What limit was that?

But if I build a Human Cleric 10/Paladin 9/Fighter 1, he has an XP penalty.

[Agincourt]

Hold on- did this suggest to anyone else that maybe UJ thinks that you take whatever the class would get at your character level, rather than starting from first? Like, if your first level of cleric was at level eleven, you'd read the "level eleven" line for cleric and take those things?

Otherwise, I think I'm more confused than when I read this the first time.

Since UrashimaJamez is from Ensendada, Mexico, English may not be his first language. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Hyde]

Since UrashimaJamez is from Ensendada, Mexico, English may not be his first language. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I can get behind that.

[kardar233]

A better replacement for that rule:

1) Use the Pathfinder bennies for favoured class rather than slaps for multi-classing, and
2) Cap characters to no more than 4 different classes total, of which no more than 2 can be prestige classes.

That rewards the favoured class, while still discouraging the more ridiculous examples of multi-classing.

That means you can't even play a Sorcadin, a classic gish, because it uses five classes: two base and three prestige.

[Urpriest]

Claiming that a jumbled build leads to "better roleplaying" seems to ignore the player's abilities, personality and imagination altogether. A multi-whatever build gives you more things to account for, maybe, and a clever player could certainly flow it all together into a particular character.

Greenish ably defended my post, but I feel the need to comment about this in particular: the heavily multiclassed build I posted is much less "jumbled" than a typical PHB-only Fighter 12. A Fighter 12 has 12 feats. Try to take 12 feats in Core on a purely martial character and have them all flow together. I guarantee you'll end up with a hideous jumble with no overarching theme. There simply aren't enough feats in Core to manage otherwise. A build where every class has a purpose towards realizing an archetype is not a jumble. A build where one class is used to do nothing particularly interesting often is.

[Rhynn]

Wasn't Elf the Fighter/Wizard guy of one of the earlier editions (when races were classes)?

Yup.

In OD&D (IIRC B/X or "Moldvay Basic" was the same), it was really vague, but many (most?) people interpret that elves have to choose each session whether they're fighters or magic-users, earned XP separately, and only used one set of abilities at a time.

In BECMI ("Mentzer Basic") elves only had one experience total and got to use their fighter and magic-user abilities at the same time, more like the fighter/mage of AD&D.

[TuggyNE]

In OD&D (IIRC B/X or "Moldvay Basic" was the same), it was really vague, but many (most?) people interpret that elves have to choose each session whether they're fighters or magic-users, earned XP separately, and only used one set of abilities at a time.

Whaaaaat.

You sir have blown my puny mind.

Pardon me for a few minutes while I attempt to gather the pieces. *wanders off*

[Hyde]

Greenish ably defended my post, but I feel the need to comment about this in particular: the heavily multiclassed build I posted is much less "jumbled" than a typical PHB-only Fighter 12. A Fighter 12 has 12 feats. Try to take 12 feats in Core on a purely martial character and have them all flow together. I guarantee you'll end up with a hideous jumble with no overarching theme. There simply aren't enough feats in Core to manage otherwise. A build where every class has a purpose towards realizing an archetype is not a jumble. A build where one class is used to do nothing particularly interesting often is.

I think his complaint might be that these multiple and many classes have flavor stamped on them beyond the mechanics of the class that could come into conflict. I think we tend to dispense with the flavor most classes are supposed to have (RSoP comes to mind) and look at the pure mechanics of class (For my money, "supposed" is used here in the loosest sense and I think ignoring WoTC's flavor in favor of our own is the right way to go about it).

The Revenant Blade is a pretty good example of a class that comes with a lot of flavor besides the mechanics, though it's one of the few that calls out prerequisites enough to get close. Frenzied Berserker is less so, but taken on its face, an elven tactician (Hide and Move Silently as prereqs) with frenzied berserker levels seems a little strange.

I guess is where he's coming from, anyway.

[tyckspoon]

That means you can't even play a Sorcadin, a classic gish, because it uses five classes: two base and three prestige.

Sorc/Pal/Abj. Champ/(Eldritch Knight/Knight Phantom/Swiftblade.) The Spellsword level is not terribly necessary to the build, it's just a really mechanically smooth way to progress into gishing before you qualify for Abjurant Champion.

[Rhynn]

Whaaaaat.

You sir have blown my puny mind.

Pardon me for a few minutes while I attempt to gather the pieces. *wanders off*

OD&D has that effect. :smallbiggrin:

Everybody who plays D&D should read OD&D. (Hard as it may be to get your hands on it.) It is weird and wonderful, and every time you read it, you find something new.* It cannot be played "out of the box" - you have to read it, and make decisions on a lot of weird rules points, or make the decisions during play. B/X has less of this, AD&D 1E and BECMI (later Rules Cyclopedia) mostly removed it, but not entirely.

Fun fact: in OD&D, race and class are actually separate, but dwarves and halflings can only be fighting-men (the original, wonderfully Burroughsian term for fighter). B/X changed non-humans into classes of their own.

Actually, here's the full OD&D text on elves and their classes:

Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero) nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock).

That's it. That is so wonderfully vague, it has to be interpreted.

Heck, hit dice have to be interpreted. They're probably not cumulative, because going from 1st to 2nd level, a fighter goes from HD 1+1 to HD 2. Do you roll every level? Do you roll every session? The rules won't tell you.

* I just recently noticed the weirdness about how all three classes can use other ability scores for their prime requisites at 2:1 and 3:1 ratios. What does this mean? If you're a fighter with Str 3 and Wis 18, can you treat your Str as 6 for XP bonus/penalty purposes? Or would you add +6 to your Str of 3? The book does not actually tell you.

[kardar233]

Sorc/Pal/Abj. Champ/(Eldritch Knight/Knight Phantom/Swiftblade.) The Spellsword level is not terribly necessary to the build, it's just a really mechanically smooth way to progress into gishing before you qualify for Abjurant Champion.

Except, if you want Divine Grace (the whole point of the "adin" of the Sorcadin) then you don't have any casting levels to lose if you want 9ths and all three of those presented options lose at least one.

[HunterOfJello]

Get rid of it. It makes absolutely no sense within the game in 3.5 and is only a vestige left over from 2e.

[Greenish]

The Revenant Blade is a pretty good example of a class that comes with a lot of flavor besides the mechanics, though it's one of the few that calls out prerequisites enough to get close. Frenzied Berserker is less so, but taken on its face, an elven tactician (Hide and Move Silently as prereqs) with frenzied berserker levels seems a little strange.It's an elf who wanted to imitate her patron ancestor enough to almost become him, and succeeded, but found that her battle rage became uncontrollable in process.

Not saying that you couldn't get just as much (or more) character on a straight fighter, but that's not a bad chunk of flavour just from the build.

[Psyren]

Actually, I disagree with the ''ignore it'' comments above. The Multiclass XP-Penalty is a well though rule that keeps PCs in a sole line (or an specific build) without getting OP. If this ISN'T true, then think about the roleplaying.

Stormwind, ho!

Pathfinder dumped it without problems, I see no reason to keep it. There are still favored classes, but they are an incentive rather than a punishment.

[Rejusu]

Actually, I disagree with the ''ignore it'' comments above. The Multiclass XP-Penalty is a well though rule that keeps PCs in a sole line (or an specific build) without getting OP. If this ISN'T true, then think about the roleplaying.

This logic kind of falls apart when you consider straight Druid. Something that is already OP, and often becomes weaker if you try and move off that straight line. Multiclassing often leads to more powerful builds yes, but to argue that discouraging it prevents PCs from becoming OP ignores that the most OP PCs don't need to multiclass. Straight caster or caster + PrC (which aren't subject to the penalty anyway) are OP anyway. So all discouraging multiclassing really does is punish mundanes who actually benefit from dipping here and there.

I always tend to ignore it simply because it doesn't even come up that often. A lot of builds that multiclass tend to drop into a PrC at the earliest opportunity at which point it becomes a non-issue. It's really not well thought out though.

[Urpriest]

I think his complaint might be that these multiple and many classes have flavor stamped on them beyond the mechanics of the class that could come into conflict. I think we tend to dispense with the flavor most classes are supposed to have (RSoP comes to mind) and look at the pure mechanics of class (For my money, "supposed" is used here in the loosest sense and I think ignoring WoTC's flavor in favor of our own is the right way to go about it).

The Revenant Blade is a pretty good example of a class that comes with a lot of flavor besides the mechanics, though it's one of the few that calls out prerequisites enough to get close. Frenzied Berserker is less so, but taken on its face, an elven tactician (Hide and Move Silently as prereqs) with frenzied berserker levels seems a little strange.

I guess is where he's coming from, anyway.

Remember, class flavor according to WotC isn't very restrictive. Yes, the entries in the PHB have specific fluff (though often even that is pretty broad), but later WotC books have clear fluff assumptions, and they're typically much more broad. A Barbarian can be a dumb brute, or a canny tribal warrior, or a petulant street-fighter, or an honorable berserker...a Rogue can be a thief, a secret agent, an assassin, even a policeman.

Some classes have more specific flavor. Radiant Servant of Pelor is only sort of an example, since it explicitly is supposed to be adapted for other Sun domain deities. Revenant Blade is a great example though, because that character is build around being a consummate Revenant Blade. What are Revenant Blades? No more or less than the exemplars of Valenar culture. Who are the Valenar? Tribal elves, fiercely proud warriors and skillful guerrillas. They aren't "skinny guys who like nature and arcane magic and graceful artsy stuff and live a long time" (classic elf fluff: a jumble), they're an authentic culture that feels like something that could exist in the real world. And if you want to represent a great warrior from that culture, Ranger works (guerrillas), as does Fighter (inhuman skill with weapons), as does Barbarian (cunning, tribal, fiercely proud, and remember that every WotC source on how to roleplay Barbarians emphasizes that one of the archetypes is a cunning sneaky one), and thence Frenzied Berserker (suicidal, bloodthirsty, self-destructive pride). For the right sort of character you need all of that, and not (as in many caricatures of multiclassing) because they all are different parts of your backstory, but because they all carry important aspects of one, holistic backstory.

This is the thing about optimized builds. The good ones, the ones that represent real practical optimization rather than some theoretical monstrosity, the ones that optimizers might actually play: they aren't jumbles. They aren't excuses. They are one single story, told the best way possible. They are works of art, and a player builds one because they have a story to tell, and they want a character whose every build choice sings it.

[Darius Kane]

I don't even use XP, so multiclass XP penalty is not a problem. That, and I play 3.P.

[hisnamehere]

What about gestalt characters...should we keep Favored Classes to avoid abuse (e.g. scout, plus rogue, plus ninja for precision insanity)?

[Hyde]

That stuff you said

I'd say "preach it!" but then... urpriest.

ur-preach it?

Anyway. Yes, I think most of us assume and enjoy flexible flavor, I had just hoped to clarify what I perceived the opposition's argument to be (I hope I represented it well. If not- I'm sorry).

I think ur-preaching would just be a guy standing at a podium and just glaring out at the congregation. For several hours.

Or a filibuster.

[hymer]

@ Doug Lampert: I'm not saying it's a rule that's well thought out, balanced or good. I was merely commenting on what it reminds me of from previous editions, and what I believe is the reasoning behind making it.
I'm also not saying that your example is any good.

[Rhynn]

What about gestalt characters...should we keep Favored Classes to avoid abuse (e.g. scout, plus rogue, plus ninja for precision insanity)?

I'm confused. How would...
1. ... that gestalt work? Are you talking scout/rogue/ninja//something else? That doesn't seem very strong... surely you'd get the most bonus damage if you just went rogue//something. Or do you mean rogue//ninja? You're going to be a pretty weak gestalt with two essentially identical classes that don't shore up each others' weaknesses.
2. ... favored class XP penalties work with gestalt? Only on one side, I presume? But that wouldn't affect the rogue//ninja (with maxed-out sneak attack + sudden strike) at all.

[Palanan]

Hmm. Evidently I have been ur-preached.

I don't feel any different.

:smalltongue:




Originally Posted by Urpriest
Try to take 12 feats in Core on a purely martial character and have them all flow together. I guarantee you'll end up with a hideous jumble with no overarching theme.

Well, you're comparing feat choices within a single class on the one hand to a progression of base classes and PrCs on the other. From where I'm sitting, these are completely different things. A feat slot isn't a level, so there's no real basis for comparison there.


Originally Posted by Urpriest
A build where every class has a purpose towards realizing an archetype is not a jumble. A build where one class is used to do nothing particularly interesting often is.

Here you seem to be assuming that someone who takes a heavily multiclassed build is, by default, better able to conceive and realize a character than someone who goes single-classed. You also seem to be assuming that a single-classed character can't do anything "particularly interesting," solely because they're single-classed.

A complex build drawn from 17 sourcebooks probably can do some interesting things, in a strictly mechanical sense, but this doesn't automatically confer a superior ability to roleplay on the person looking at the character sheet. A creative player can take a sad little lump of feats and create a memorable delight in the game. An unimaginative player can take a crisp, competent archetypal gem and play it like GTA.

What I'm saying is it depends on the player to bring the character to life, not the build.


Originally Posted by Urpriest
There's also the fact that multiclassed and multi-PrC builds almost always have more flavor...than single-classed builds.

But if flavor is what you make of it, and essentially dispensable, why is this even a factor? If, as Hyde says, you're just looking at the pure mechanics of a class, then how does flavor have any influence here?

Again, the overwhelming assumption seems to be that a mechanically simple character just can't be played with the same degree of depth, intelligence and finesse as a work of multiclassed art or whatever. I don't agree with that assumption in theory, and I've never seen it borne out at the gaming table.




Originally Posted by Hyde
I had just hoped to clarify what I perceived the opposition's argument to be (I hope I represented it well. If not- I'm sorry).

No worries, I appreciate it.

[Divide by Zero]

Here you seem to be assuming that someone who takes a heavily multiclassed build is, by default, better able to conceive and realize a character than someone who goes single-classed. You also seem to be assuming that a single-classed character can't do anything "particularly interesting," solely because they're single-classed.

A complex build drawn from 17 sourcebooks probably can do some interesting things, in a strictly mechanical sense, but this doesn't automatically confer a superior ability to roleplay on the person looking at the character sheet. A creative player can take a sad little lump of feats and create a memorable delight in the game. An unimaginative player can take a crisp, competent archetypal gem and play it like GTA.

What I'm saying is it depends on the player to bring the character to life, not the build.

...

Again, the overwhelming assumption seems to be that a mechanically simple character just can't be played with the same degree of depth, intelligence and finesse as a work of multiclassed art or whatever. I don't agree with that assumption in theory, and I've never seen it borne out at the gaming table.

That goes both ways, though. A "jumbled" character build isn't necessarily less capable of being roleplayed well either, and if the player's concept can't be represented properly by a single class, why should they be penalized for multiclassing to trying to make it work? As long as it doesn't overshadow the other characters or break the game world in half (which non-casters, the usual candidates for heavy multiclassing, rarely do), why does it matter how many classes they use?

[Greenish]

Well, you're comparing feat choices within a single class on the one hand to a progression of base classes and PrCs on the other. From where I'm sitting, these are completely different things. A feat slot isn't a level, so there's no real basis for comparison there.The point is about the flavour of the build. Feats grant abilities, classes grant abilities, there's no great difference which is which from flavour perspective.


Here you seem to be assuming that someone who takes a heavily multiclassed build is, by default, better able to conceive and realize a character than someone who goes single-classed. You also seem to be assuming that a single-classed character can't do anything "particularly interesting," solely because they're single-classed.That's not what he said. What he said is that a build where single class is used to do nothing particularly interesting is a jumble, not that single-classed characters in general can't do anything particularly interesting.


A complex build drawn from 17 sourcebooks probably can do some interesting things, in a strictly mechanical sense, but this doesn't automatically confer a superior ability to roleplay on the person looking at the character sheet.And no one is arguing that.


Again, the overwhelming assumption seems to be that a mechanically simple character just can't be played with the same degree of depth, intelligence and finesse as a work of multiclassed art or whatever.I don't know what thread you're reading, but it can't be this one.

[hisnamehere]

Sorry, twas a quick post.
I meant, and only as an example, taking Rogue levels on one side, with 2 single level dips into Scout and Ninja, to get 2 extra dice of dmg (say, +3d6 by 3rd level), and something else on the other side. Eventually the levels would be Scout 1/Ninja 1/Rog 18/<something> 20. This would incur an XP penalty as Rogue and <something> levels climb much higher than the dips.

So, too cheesy?

[Greenish]

Sorry, twas a quick post.
I meant, and only as an example, taking Rogue levels on one side, with 2 single level dips into Scout and Ninja, to get 2 extra dice of dmg (say, +3d6 by 3rd level), and something else on the other side. Eventually the levels would be Scout 1/Ninja 1/Rog 18/<something> 20. This would incur an XP penalty as Rogue and <something> levels climb much higher than the dips.

So, too cheesy?What. How is having 1d6 Skirmish and 1d6 Sudden Strike on a rogue build cheesy?

[Urpriest]

Well, you're comparing feat choices within a single class on the one hand to a progression of base classes and PrCs on the other. From where I'm sitting, these are completely different things. A feat slot isn't a level, so there's no real basis for comparison there.

You were arguing that one of the builds I presented was more jumbled than the other. Feats, levels, and other build elements contribute equally to the question of build cohesiveness/theme, which is what your accusation of "jumble" pertains to. Far from there being no basis of comparison, there is no basis by which to separate the two.



Here you seem to be assuming that someone who takes a heavily multiclassed build is, by default, better able to conceive and realize a character than someone who goes single-classed. You also seem to be assuming that a single-classed character can't do anything "particularly interesting," solely because they're single-classed.

A complex build drawn from 17 sourcebooks probably can do some interesting things, in a strictly mechanical sense, but this doesn't automatically confer a superior ability to roleplay on the person looking at the character sheet. A creative player can take a sad little lump of feats and create a memorable delight in the game. An unimaginative player can take a crisp, competent archetypal gem and play it like GTA.

What I'm saying is it depends on the player to bring the character to life, not the build.

As Greenish pointed out, this is explicitly not what I was talking about in that post, so....




But if flavor is what you make of it, and essentially dispensable, why is this even a factor? If, as Hyde says, you're just looking at the pure mechanics of a class, then how does flavor have any influence here?


I'm not arguing that flavor is dispensable. Classes have flavor, they aren't just pure mechanics. That flavor is broad, though, and dependent on context, as borne out by everything WotC has written on the subject. It also connects to the mechanics: abilities that require Rage as a prerequisite give other abilities that match the Barbarian archetypes, while abilities that require Sneak Attack fit one of WotC's many conceptions of the Rogue.

You can play a jumbled build well, or a well-organized build poorly. I do think that there is some connection between skill at building a character and skill at playing it, because often the process of building a character along a theme immerses you in the relevant fluff, which several schools of acting agree helps you play a role. A player who goes for a jumbled build like aforementioned core-only Fighter 12 can make the mistake of not playing a character archetype that makes sense as a Fighter 12 (usually because of a lack of understanding of what 12th level means in terms of professionalism and general competence), while a build purpose-built to a particular archetype reminds the player of what they actually can and cannot accomplish. That's one particular mistake that players with jumbled builds can make but players with organized builds can't, but I fully acknowledge that for the most part, people can make the same roleplaying mistakes with either. All I'm arguing is that optimization is fundamentally about making builds less jumbled, not moreso.

[Palanan]

Fair enough. I doubt we'll ever entirely agree on...anything, but it's a coherent rationale you've presented, and fluidly so. Let's just say I have a far different perspective on much of you've detailed here.

The only point I really want to address is the word jumble, which I think you've taken far more to heart than I ever intended. It was an off-the-cuff and very subjective term, hardly meant as an accusation. A fleeting impression, if you will, rather than a strict technical descriptor.

[Rhynn]

Sorry, twas a quick post.
I meant, and only as an example, taking Rogue levels on one side, with 2 single level dips into Scout and Ninja, to get 2 extra dice of dmg (say, +3d6 by 3rd level), and something else on the other side. Eventually the levels would be Scout 1/Ninja 1/Rog 18/<something> 20. This would incur an XP penalty as Rogue and <something> levels climb much higher than the dips.

So, too cheesy?

Not even remotely. Instead of sneak attack +10d6, you've got +9d6 sneak attack, +1d6 skirmish, and +1d6 sudden strike... which means you're weaker than a rogue 20, who gets +10d6 sneak attack, which is far and away better than the other two, since it can be used on all attacks of a full attack and against flat-footed, flanked, or denied-Dex-to-AC, while skirmish requires moving 10+ feet (requiring some convolutions to get pounce or using a dubious 3.0 magic item), and sudden strike only applies against denied-Dex-to-AC (so it's a narrower sneak attack). The other 19 levels of ninja are pretty much about giving you (bad) ways to deny opponents Dex to AC.

I mean, a rogue 20//ninja 20 (kind of horrible for gestalt, frankly) is already better at precision damage, with +10d6 sneak attack and +10d6 sudden strike, and doesn't get any kind of XP penalty.

And given this is gestalt, you're not going to be anywhere near as cheesy as a druid 20//wizard 20 (or any other fullcaster//fullcaster) can be, never mind actual gestalt builds...

[Eslin]

My only objection here is rogue 20. That class is crying out for a capstone >.>

[Divide by Zero]

My only objection here is rogue 20. That class is crying out for a capstone >.>

What are you talking about? Rogue doesn't have a 20th level.

[hisnamehere]

Wow, I never noticed that 20th level. +1 BAB and +1 Ref? Yeah, I can think of a couple better deals.

P.S. Thanks for making me feel better (and worse) about dipping. :smallsmile: