Experience penalties for multiclass characters

[littlebum2002]

Can someone please explain to me and/or show me where I can find the rules on experience penalties for multiclassing? I've looked through the DMG and can't find them anywhere.

[Karnith]

I've looked through the DMG and can't find them anywhere.
That's probably because they are in the Player's Handbook, on page 60.

[nedz]

IIRC it's not in the SRD because it falls into the category of non OGL information.

[littlebum2002]

That would explain it. Thank you.

EDIT:

So you take a 20% penalty for every experience point you gain, ever? That's really harsh.

[Karnith]

So you take a 20% penalty for every experience point you gain, ever? That's really harsh.
That's one of the reasons that they frequently get ignored in games. There's really nothing good or well thought-out about the multiclass XP penalty rules.

And here's probably the best example of how silly it can get (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292844).

[nedz]

Although re-reading that old thread was hilarious, are we sure that xp penalties stack rather than overlap ?

[KillianHawkeye]

Although re-reading that old thread was hilarious, are we sure that xp penalties stack rather than overlap ?

They absolutely stack. I believe there's an example in the book to such effect.

[jindra34]

They absolutely stack. I believe there's an example in the book to such effect.

They are also quite explicit in that its a 20% penalty PER CLASS more than 1(? its been a while since I cared) away from the highest.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, the penalty is 20% per class more than one level from your highest class (not counting favored classes).

So a character who was a Fighter 4/Ranger 1/Barbarian 2 would suffer -20% experience each for their Ranger and Barbarian classes (-40% total) unless their favored class was Fighter (or Any).

[gooddragon1]

So if you were Class 1/Class 2/Class 3/Class 4/Class 5/Class 6/Class 7/Class 8/Class 9/Class 10/Class 11

And your class 11 was 2nd level you'd take a -200% penalty to XP if you got to 3rd level in class 11? Would that cause you to lose XP?

[Big Fau]

So if you were Class 1/Class 2/Class 3/Class 4/Class 5/Class 6/Class 7/Class 8/Class 9/Class 10/Class 11

And your class 11 was 2nd level you'd take a -200% penalty to XP if you got to 3rd level in class 11? Would that cause you to lose XP?

It would be impossible to get to that point without retraining shenanigans, as once you hit -100% (6 classes) you'd stop gaining XP entirely.

[Karnith]

It would be impossible to get to that point without retraining shenanigans, as once you hit -100% (6 classes) you'd stop gaining XP entirely.
The idea is to have one level in each class (so that there is no XP penalty), and then to level one of them up third level, so that the penalty would only set in at that point (i.e. level 13).

In which case you would suddenly be faced with a penalty of over 100% to your XP. However that works.

[nedz]

So if you were Class 1/Class 2/Class 3/Class 4/Class 5/Class 6/Class 7/Class 8/Class 9/Class 10/Class 11

And your class 11 was 2nd level you'd take a -200% penalty to XP if you got to 3rd level in class 11? Would that cause you to lose XP?

Yes, I posted a similar example on the old thread.

Ed: note that accidentally ending up with -100% xp is worse than landing yourself -120% xp, because in the second case you can get out of the situation when you level down.

[ArqArturo]

This is why I never even bothered with XP penalty.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, nobody knows what happens then. Just ignore this bogus rule anyway.

[Telonius]

As soon as the multiclass penalty reaches 100%, you undergo a strange transformation. All of the pigmentation of your skin and clothing reverses itself around the color wheel (red becomes green, blue becomes orange, etc). You immediately grow a goatee, and are affected as though by a Helm of Opposite Alignment. There is a 10% chance that your gender reverses. Your multiclass experience penalty is reset to zero percent, and all levels currently gained do not count against the multiclass limit.

[Morphie]

I never had a problem with that rule, not because the group I play with banned it - we won't ever do that -, but because we don't dip much on other classes. When multiclassing we usually stick with 2 base classes and sometimes a prestige class. I think of the rule as a way the developers found to limit the number of base classes each PC has, and that's fine by me.
If someone eventually wanted to dip like his life depended on it, I would probably suggest a feat that allowed the character to choose an extra favored class or something like that.

[Sith_Happens]

I never had a problem with that rule, not because the group I play with banned it - we won't ever do that -, but because we don't dip much on other classes. When multiclassing we usually stick with 2 base classes and sometimes a prestige class. I think of the rule as a way the developers found to limit the number of base classes each PC has, and that's fine by me.
If someone eventually wanted to dip like his life depended on it, I would probably suggest a feat that allowed the character to choose an extra favored class or something like that.

And what happens if neither of your two classes is your race's favored class? Kind of sucks to be you in that case.

[LordBlades]

Personally, beyond the obvious stupid things about that rule (like 100% and more xp penalties), I think that rule is anachronistic and adds nothing to the game:

-It rarely helps with power issues since most powerful builds usually involve one full caster class and PrCs.

-It promotes stereotypes due to favorite class rules.

-Due to how most of 3.5 was designed (mainly in regard to everything being usable with core+the respective book), races only have as favored class either a core class or a class from the book they were introduced. You'd be hard pressed to find a race with favored class Warblade, or Dread Necromancer for example.

[Morphie]

And what happens if neither of your two classes is your race's favored class? Kind of sucks to be you in that case.

Race is something that we think about when we're planning the concept we want for our char, it isn't just something whose stats "fit" optimally or mechanical-wise. We also enforce the creation of a characters' background that justifies the choice of race/class and also adds more information about what drove that person into the adventuring life.
It hasn't happened so far, but if there would be, let's say, a dwarf that was adopted as a child by a scholar that eventually taught him about the arcane arts he may have his favored class replaced by the DM from fighter to wizard. If the player wants something different than what the rulebooks imply he talks to the DM about it and then both of them try to find a way to make it happen.

But that's just the way our group works, if other groups find it easier to just ban multiclassing xp penalty, why not? I just don't find that rule silly, that's all.

[LordBlades]

But that's just the way our group works, if other groups find it easier to just ban multiclassing xp penalty, why not? I just don't find that rule silly, that's all.

But do you feel it adds anything to the game? I'm just curious.

[Mithril Leaf]

Yes, I posted a similar example on the old thread.

Ed: note that accidentally ending up with -100% xp is worse than landing yourself -120% xp, because in the second case you can get out of the situation when you level down.

Wouldn't you gain 20% of the level's experience in the later situation if you use level drain? :smallwink:

[Morphie]

But do you feel it adds anything to the game? I'm just curious.

IMHO D&D was thought as a group game whose roles are meant to be supported by different players - the traditional adventuring group usually consists of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue and a mage. So the designers came to the conclusion that If someone were to try to fill a broader choice of roles at once, that person would eventually have a harder time concentrating on one and so would have a certain delay in their progress, hence the penalty. I'm not saying the cummulative value doesn't get silly, they could have just stopped at 20% and called it a day.

Doing the math: You start with a base class. Then you can add a second one, something that you think that will complement your concept. And then you add the races' favored class aspect to the mix: a knack to a certain role, something thay are able to do without much effort. With that in mind, you can have up to 3 classes at once without major problems, considering you keep leveled the ones that aren't your favored, this without mentioning the choice of a prestige class. - 4 classes, if you choose only one PrC. Isn't it enough to represent your concept?

As I said before, the group in wich I've started playing - and keep on doing it on a weekly-basis :smallsmile: - for over 15 years never had a problem with this, we just keep things simple on a low-to-mid op perspective. But there is always a way to change things, we just talk amongst ourselves to find it.

[Sith_Happens]

Isn't it enough to represent your concept?

If anything, I'd say that usually depends on the PrC(s). There's quite a few that encourage an eclectic combination of levels to qualify for and/or make the most of, and a smaller number that actually require it.

[LordBlades]

IMHO D&D was thought as a group game whose roles are meant to be supported by different players - the traditional adventuring group usually consists of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue and a mage. So the designers came to the conclusion that If someone were to try to fill a broader choice of roles at once, that person would eventually have a harder time concentrating on one and so would have a certain delay in their progress, hence the penalty. I'm not saying the cummulative value doesn't get silly, they could have just stopped at 20% and called it a day.

It' still doesn't prevent that, even if that was the intent of the rule,since most races can go BaseClasss 1/BaseClass 2 in any combination, as long as one is the race's favorite class.


Doing the math: You start with a base class. Then you can add a second one, something that you think that will complement your concept. And then you add the races' favored class aspect to the mix: a knack to a certain role, something thay are able to do without much effort. With that in mind, you can have up to 3 classes at once without major problems, considering you keep leveled the ones that aren't your favored, this without mentioning the choice of a prestige class. - 4 classes, if you choose only one PrC. Isn't it enough to represent your concept?

It probably is. Personally I haven't played (or seen in a game I've been a part of) a concept that needed more than 3 base classes (although I'm sure there are a few).

What bothers me the most, is how this rule punishes going against racial stereotypes.
Take a gish (fighter/wizard) for example, a pretty classical fantasy concept, which is probably most often built as fighter 1/wizard X/PrCs. With XP penatly enforced, I pretty much need to play something with favored class Fighter, Wizard or Any in order to pull it off, which adds another mechanical element to race choice.

[Morphie]

What bothers me the most, is how this rule punishes going against racial stereotypes.
Take a gish (fighter/wizard) for example, a pretty classical fantasy concept, which is probably most often built as fighter 1/wizard X/PrCs. With XP penatly enforced, I pretty much need to play something with favored class Fighter, Wizard or Any in order to pull it off, which adds another mechanical element to race choice.

But if you think about it, the definition of a race is stereotyped in its nature, otherwise there wouldn't be, among other differences, any racial ability score modifiers - you could have a tough elf or a puny fragile dwarf - just the thought makes me smile :smallbiggrin:.
So, based on that principle, the same can happen with the class.

Taking your example, in order to achieve a fighter 1/ wizard x, you could choose a human, a elf, a half-elf or a dwarf, considering just the core races. That's more than half of them. And if you just add in the fact of being able to talk to your DM and change stuff by negotiating - giving something to get something in return - you can have almost everything available.

Just banning the rule takes some flavour out of the races, it wouldn't make sense to have a favored class otherwise.

[nedz]

A few years ago I had a player stumble into this problem.

He went Dwarf Fighter 4 / Rogue 4, so far, so good.

Then he went into Cleric.

He chose Vergaddin, Dwarven god of Merchants and Thieves.
This had a houserule which allowed Clerics of Vergaddin to choose Rogue as their favoured class instead of Fighter; he misunderstood the rule and thought this meant he had two favoured classes. All was well until he got to Dwarf Fighter 4 / Rogue 4 / Cleric 6 when I spotted this and called him on it. (Now I should have spotted this sooner — no matter)

We had a group discussion and dumped the xp penalty rule.

Now this is not a power build, it's distinctly mid-OP. It's also not a build involving multi-dips; it's very organic.

Why should this build be penalised ?

It is fully within the stereotypes of Dwarf and Vergaddin.


Wouldn't you gain 20% of the level's experience in the later situation if you use level drain? :smallwink:

Sadly it doesn't work that way. You would have to do something to actually lose xp. Getting unlucky and drawing Fool from the Deck of Many Things is the only option that comes to mind, though there may be other ways.

[Karnith]

Personally, beyond the obvious stupid things about that rule (like 100% and more xp penalties), I think that rule is anachronistic and adds nothing to the game:
It also encourages builds composed of nothing but dips, something that I'm fairly sure wasn't intended in a rule penalizing multiclassing.

After all, a Monk 2/Fighter 2/Rogue 1/Barbarian 1 won't take multiclass XP penalties, but a Monk 5/Rogue 1 will (ignoring Favored Class rules).

[LordBlades]

Just banning the rule takes some flavour out of the races, it wouldn't make sense to have a favored class otherwise.

I fail to see how it does that. Using the rule often leads to 'I need to be race X,Y or Z' for this character concept or I'm going to take an XP penalty, even if I wanted to play something else for RP reasons.

In an ideal world, race should be mostly a fluff decision, but in D&D there already too many mechanical reasons for which some races are great and other races suck. Anything that moves the game further in that direction is bad IMO.

[Big Fau]

I fail to see how it does that. Using the rule often leads to 'I need to be race X,Y or Z' for this character concept or I'm going to take an XP penalty, even if I wanted to play something else for RP reasons.

In an ideal world, race should be mostly a fluff decision, but in D&D there already too many mechanical reasons for which some races are great and other races suck. Anything that moves the game further in that direction is bad IMO.

I disagree with the last part. In an ideal world the races are competitively balanced so that each one is viable for a multitude of builds, providing notable mechanical benefits that synergize with class choice, feat selection, and equipment. Most races do not provide this outside of racial-restricted PrCs, and very few items that check for racial requirements are actually useful.

Races should not be shoehorned into a role or class by penalties, but by incentives to play that particular class such as racial substitution levels that are actually worthwhile or feats that encourage a style or concept. Half-Orcs, for example, are suboptimal Duskblades because there is no support for them that offsets the racial penalties (both the Int hit and the Light Sensitivity, which is a joke to begin with). All they get is a +2 Str.

Races are poorly designed because the mechanical benefits are often numerical increases instead of versatile options. Humans and Strongheart Halflings are vaunted because their bonus feat goes a really long way to enabling builds, but they have nothing else. Half-Elves are the absolute worst of the bunch: Pure numerical bonuses that have little to no impact in the mid-levels and almost no support worth noting. The support they do have usually tries to tip the race closer to Human or Elf, rather than establishing them as a unique race (Eberron did give them the Mark of Storms, which is incredible in its own right).

4E and Legend both took races in a better direction, although I dislike some choices that were made with both. 3.5's races are non-notable, outside of things like Raptoran, Warforged, Skarn, and other races with actual abilities and support. Still, most of that support is minimal (and for the Raptoran the only reason it's used is for the easy-access to EX Flight).

[Segev]

In the most successful D&D game I ever ran, I used Gestalt 3.5 rules, but had the requirement that one side of your gestalt had to be your race's favored class. Yes, humans and half-elves had the somewhat unfair advantage of getting to pick a "favored class" for their build. Still, it worked well.

[Story]

Half-Elves are the absolute worst of the bunch: Pure numerical bonuses that have little to no impact in the mid-levels and almost no support worth noting. The support they do have usually tries to tip the race closer to Human or Elf, rather than establishing them as a unique race (Eberron did give them the Mark of Storms, which is incredible in its own right).

The one thing that Half Elves are really good at are Diplomancers thanks to Complementary Insight and racial Diplomacy bonus. They're better than +CHA races, even with the motivate aura. But in a practical game they're pretty useless.

[Dawgmoah]

It also encourages builds composed of nothing but dips, something that I'm fairly sure wasn't intended in a rule penalizing multiclassing.

After all, a Monk 2/Fighter 2/Rogue 1/Barbarian 1 won't take multiclass XP penalties, but a Monk 5/Rogue 1 will (ignoring Favored Class rules).

From what I am reading the folks on this forum don't like XP penalties since it interferes with all of the dipping and power builds. The siren song of following RAW fades when faced with an unfavorable rule it would appear.

Your example above would ignore XP penalties, great, then when faced with a character level appropriate challenge would get wiped all over the floor.

[Karnith]

From what I am reading the folks on this forum don't like XP penalties since it interferes with all of the dipping and power builds.Pardon? The most powerful builds in 3.5 require roughly zero dipping; Wizard 20, Cleric 20, and Druid 20 are absurdly strong, and to go up from there generally requires prestige classing. Noncaster classes, particularly those from early in 3.5's lifespan, are rarely worth taking for more than a few levels, and are even more rarely worth staying in for one's entire adventuring career. They also have an annoying tendency to be strictly limited in their capabilities.

Multiclassing/dipping does not unbalance the game any more than not doing so. Dipping classes as a non-caster is generally an attempt to catch up enough to be relevant, or to play a character concept that isn't supported by just one base class.

The siren song of following RAW fades when faced with an unfavorable rule it would appear.
It's a rule that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, that has negative balance implications, and that restricts one's ability to play a wide variety of character concepts. Like drown healing, I recognize that it's RAW but see zero reason in keeping it for a game.

Your example above would ignore XP penalties, great, then when faced with a character level appropriate challenge would get wiped all over the floor.
I wasn't trying to give an example of an optimized build (which was, you know, the point), but if you'd prefer you can pretend that it was a Spirit Lion Totem, Wolf Totem, Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 2/Dungeoncrasher Fighter 2/Crusader 1/Warblade 1.

[nedz]

From what I am reading the folks on this forum don't like XP penalties since it interferes with all of the dipping and power builds. The siren song of following RAW fades when faced with an unfavorable rule it would appear.

Your example above would ignore XP penalties, great, then when faced with a character level appropriate challenge would get wiped all over the floor.

Your third sentence contradicts your first.

RAW is mainly used as a common point of reference, and they are like the rules of the game we are discussing here.

Also, a major interest of this Forum is finding RAW that is broken; see the link below. This is stuff which generally requires house-rules.

We do other stuff too.

[Dawgmoah]

Pardon? The most powerful builds in 3.5 require roughly zero dipping; Wizard 20, Cleric 20, and Druid 20 are absurdly strong, and to go up from there generally requires prestige classing. Noncaster classes, particularly those from early in 3.5's lifespan, are rarely worth taking for more than a few levels, and are even more rarely worth staying in for one's entire adventuring career. They also have an annoying tendency to be strictly limited in their capabilities.

I won't debate the point; it is my opinion that is the way the game was designed. And if you want to stray across several different character classes the penalty comes in.

The first part of your statement that leaps out at me is:


They also have an annoying tendency to be strictly limited in their capabilities.

So what I see you stating is the original is too limiting. Playing in the traditional roles of Fighter, Cleric, etc is annoying.


Dipping classes as a non-caster is generally an attempt to catch up enough to be relevant, or to play a character concept that isn't supported by a just one base class.

Relevant to what? Guess it depends on the DM and campaign what is relevant. So you are stating that a rule should be thrown out as it gets in the way of a character concept.


It's a rule that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, that has negative balance implications, and that restricts one's ability to play a wide variety of character concepts. Like drown healing, I recognize that it's RAW but see zero reason in keeping it for a game.

You see zero reason in keeping it for a game due to:

Zero dipping strictly limits capabilities and is annoying.
Restricts one's ability to play a wide variety of character concepts.
Has negative balance implications.


Therefore let's get rid of that pesky rule so we can play things like a Spirit Wolf Toto, Gargling Frenzied Coed Shopkeeper 2/Nose Mining Celerity Middle Fingered Focus 2/ Pablum Investigator 1/ Fowl Master of Ducking 2.

If that is your bag: go with it. I for one do not believe the game should be neutered of rules that are there to restrain the wilder abuses folks try to endlessly pull.


Your third sentence contradicts your first.

Can you elaborate on this a bit please?


Also, a major interest of this Forum is finding RAW that is broken; see the link below. This is stuff which generally requires house-rules.

A major interest of this forum is to bend, ignore, or abuse any rule that gets in the way of the character concept the player wants to pull over a DM. A quick check on titles show countless players mostly asking how to get over on their DM, trick their DM, build something to surprise their DM with it's power and abuse the rules as much as possible.

RAW is broken, especially when folks attempt to claim they are following the rules when they know the book has a typo or just doesn't make sense, like the above mentioned drown healing. Yet to throw out rules because they get in the way of a player's right to build anything they want is silly.

[Telonius]

In my experience, most of the builds with an absurd number of x/x/x/x's aren't getting that number from base classes. They're getting them from PrC's, which explicitly don't count against multiclassing penalties.

One demonstration of why this is, is the Monk2/Fighter2/Rogue1/Barbarian1 example. It's silly because it's so all-over-the-place and weak that nobody would actually use it. But something with a much more modest number of dips - like one, for the Monk5/Rogue1 example, or something else that could easily be justified thematically - gets clobbered with a penalty.

[Dawgmoah]

In my experience, most of the builds with an absurd number of x/x/x/x's aren't getting that number from base classes. They're getting them from PrC's, which explicitly don't count against multiclassing penalties.

One demonstration of why this is, is the Monk2/Fighter2/Rogue1/Barbarian1 example. It's silly because it's so all-over-the-place and weak that nobody would actually use it. But something with a much more modest number of dips - like one, for the Monk5/Rogue1 example, or something else that could easily be justified thematically - gets clobbered with a penalty.

Sadly I have had people want to play something like the above example. They say they get tired of "just doing one thing" or they are building a character concept.

And there is nothing wrong with people optimizing character builds or playing true to their idea of a character concept. As long as it meets the requirements and fits into the game as hosted by the DM guess one could add.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm a huge fan multicass XP penalties. It's very humanocentric and I prefer to have more humans than members of any other race in my campaign. Because of dips, I get my wish quite often.

[Big Fau]

XP penalties punish noncasters more than it affects casters, as most caster builds will either stay single-classed (Druid, Dread Necromancer) or PrC out ASAP (Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer). Meanwhile some of the best class features for a noncaster require dips, as they are spread out amongst several different base classes.

Furthermore some builds are completely organic, or even outright encouraged, yet suffer the XP penalty in spite of their flavor. Scout 4/Ranger 16 and Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 are both viable builds thanks to Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw (respectively), but would be extremely tedious to actually play due to the XP rule past 9th level (without Favored Class: Ranger).

Again, spellcasters rarely ever notice the rule.


A major interest of this forum is to bend, ignore, or abuse any rule that gets in the way of the character concept the player wants to pull over a DM. A quick check on titles show countless players mostly asking how to get over on their DM, trick their DM, build something to surprise their DM with it's power and abuse the rules as much as possible.

I'd be hard-pressed to run a game without House Rules, as would virtually every DM in the world. It isn't just a forum-exclusive phenomenon, and it most certainly isn't restricted to this forum.

[nedz]

From what I am reading the folks on this forum don't like XP penalties since it interferes with all of the dipping and power builds.
Your example above would ignore XP penalties, great, then when faced with a character level appropriate challenge would get wiped all over the floor.



Can you elaborate on this a bit please?


You claimed that the Playground is all about power gaming and then you criticise a build for being weak.

[TuggyNE]

So you are stating that a rule should be thrown out as it gets in the way of a character concept.
[…]
I for one do not believe the game should be neutered of rules that are there to restrain the wilder abuses folks try to endlessly pull.
[…]
A major interest of this forum is to bend, ignore, or abuse any rule that gets in the way of the character concept the player wants to pull over a DM. A quick check on titles show countless players mostly asking how to get over on their DM, trick their DM, build something to surprise their DM with it's power and abuse the rules as much as possible.

You are very seriously conflating two entirely different and generally orthogonal aspects: character concept, and build power level. A character concept of "reasonably capable einhander swordsman, like the Dread Pirate Roberts" is one that is non-trivial to accomplish with any kind of vaguely adequate power level (i.e., keeping up with any other normal party member), while a character concept of "shapeshifting/personal enhancement-specializing wizard" will likely be quite powerful, simply by adhering to the basic ideas of that concept and expressing them naturally. And labeling any character concepts other than "Fighter, who fights fighterishly/Wizard, who is all studious and casts a lot/Cleric, who heals and also heals/Rogue, who sneaks and backstabs and picks locks" as "pulling something over on the DM", as it appears you may be tending toward, is not merely wrong, but offensive.

I'd also like to note that whenever threads on "pulling one over" appear, the first few replies almost always contain at least one remonstration against such carelessness, or a caution against ruining games to make a point, or whatever. The Playground is not that irresponsible, even if some posters are.

[LordBlades]

I won't debate the point; it is my opinion that is the way the game was designed. And if you want to stray across several different character classes the penalty comes in.

So it's your opinion that the game was designed with the intent of druid 20/cleric 20/wizard 20 greatly overpowering anything else?






So what I see you stating is the original is too limiting. Playing in the traditional roles of Fighter, Cleric, etc is annoying.

What's annoying to quite a few of us is that playing the traditional roles of fighter and rogue is limiting; playing the traditional roles of cleric and wizard is not.




Relevant to what? Guess it depends on the DM and campaign what is relevant. So you are stating that a rule should be thrown out as it gets in the way of a character concept.

Relevant to when the cleric or wizard accidentally or on purpose drop the idiot ball they were holding and start enacting tactics worthy of those superhuman mental scores they most likely possess.





If that is your bag: go with it. I for one do not believe the game should be neutered of rules that are there to restrain the wilder abuses folks try to endlessly pull.


How are 99.9% of multiclassing builds a 'wilder abuse' than an optimized single class caster? Come to think about it, Pun-Pun is single class too.







A major interest of this forum is to bend, ignore, or abuse any rule that gets in the way of the character concept the player wants to pull over a DM. A quick check on titles show countless players mostly asking how to get over on their DM, trick their DM, build something to surprise their DM with it's power and abuse the rules as much as possible.


Not sure where you get this idea, 'cause the most often used line in this forum (At least from my experience) is 'talk it over with your group/DM/player'




RAW is broken, especially when folks attempt to claim they are following the rules when they know the book has a typo or just doesn't make sense, like the above mentioned drown healing. Yet to throw out rules because they get in the way of a player's right to build anything they want is silly.

So drown healing obviously doesn't make sense, and as such should be thrown out, but a rule that punishes classical, well-supported concepts (like fighter 1/wizard 5/Eldritch Knight of a race with neither fighter nor wizard as favored class), but doesn't punish something like taking one level in every base class ever published and can result in a character never gaining any XP again (over 100% XP penalty) totally makes sense and shouldn't be thrown out?

[Enguebert]

Why spellcaster rarely multiclass and melee want to multiclass a lot ?

This is related to the class abilities.
Spellcaster gains a lot with the levels of their class (mainly new spell levels and more powerful spells) while melee usually don't gain a lot with the higher levels of their class, while firsts levels of other classes give them a lot

The best example is fighter.
From level 3, fighter gains ONLY

+1 BAB
+1/2 Fort
+1/3 Will & Ref
+1/2 Feat
2 skill points per level


Now look what can give 2 level of Rogue/Monk/Ranger/barbarian
BAB : +1 or +2
Save : at least a +3
Feat : between 2 and 5 feat/class abilities (you can't always choose them but you can choose the class)
more than 2 skill points per level !

So the problem is not the XP penalty, it is the lack of abilities for melee class
at higher levels

[Angelmaker]

A major interest of this forum is to bend, ignore, or abuse any rule that gets in the way of the character concept the player wants to pull over a DM. A quick check on titles show countless players mostly asking how to get over on their DM, trick their DM, build something to surprise their DM with it's power and abuse the rules as much as possible.

.

And each of those threads are responded with sensible answers to. Like "sort out Our issues by talking to your dm instead of powertripping" or the like. It is not as if there aren't hundreds of power builds, guides or handbooks already out there.

[Dawgmoah]

I'm a huge fan multicass XP penalties. It's very humanocentric and I prefer to have more humans than members of any other race in my campaign. Because of dips, I get my wish quite often.

Jon you seem to be in the minority on this issue. How would you address the points made about classical builds and punishing non-casters?

[Dawgmoah]

XP penalties punish noncasters more than it affects casters, as most caster builds will either stay single-classed (Druid, Dread Necromancer) or PrC out ASAP (Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer). Meanwhile some of the best class features for a noncaster require dips, as they are spread out amongst several different base classes.

Furthermore some builds are completely organic, or even outright encouraged, yet suffer the XP penalty in spite of their flavor. Scout 4/Ranger 16 and Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 are both viable builds thanks to Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw (respectively), but would be extremely tedious to actually play due to the XP rule past 9th level (without Favored Class: Ranger).

Again, spellcasters rarely ever notice the rule.[/QUIT]

Thank you for your example. Would the penalty stop this build or just slow it down? I can certainly see how the character would fall behind the others. And if the casters were not being it with the penalty (not needing to dip) they would get that much further ahead of the rest.

[QUOTE=Big Fau;16369304]I'd be hard-pressed to run a game without House Rules, as would virtually every DM in the world. It isn't just a forum-exclusive phenomenon, and it most certainly isn't restricted to this forum.

Part of my problem, and the source of my opinion, is based on House Rules and some of the terminology used here that I am unfamiliar with. What is the difference for example between a "Rule 0," "DM Fiat," and "House Rule?"

[Dawgmoah]

Let's see if I can combine these instead of spamming the thread so badly, my apologies.


You claimed that the Playground is all about power gaming and then you criticise a build for being weak.

I said the folks on this forum don't like XP penalties since it interferes with all of the dipping and power builds. You take that as stating the Playground is all about power gaming if you want; but I did not say it is all about power gaming exclusively as you suggest. And yes, with all of the changes of class the character would be weak for that character level.


You are very seriously conflating two entirely different and generally orthogonal aspects: character concept, and build power level. A character concept of "reasonably capable einhander swordsman, like the Dread Pirate Roberts" is one that is non-trivial to accomplish with any kind of vaguely adequate power level (i.e., keeping up with any other normal party member), while a character concept of "shapeshifting/personal enhancement-specializing wizard" will likely be quite powerful, simply by adhering to the basic ideas of that concept and expressing them naturally. And labeling any character concepts other than "Fighter, who fights fighterishly/Wizard, who is all studious and casts a lot/Cleric, who heals and also heals/Rogue, who sneaks and backstabs and picks locks" as "pulling something over on the DM", as it appears you may be tending toward, is not merely wrong, but offensive.

I can only relate to what I have seen in the few months I've taken the time to look at posts here and there. And my opinion does not actually follow what you say is not merely wrong but offensive. I will let a player run any character concept (usually based on that entirely different and generally orthogonal aspect: build power level) they want: but it has to fit the campaign being played. Players will show up wanting to pull feats from eight different published works (out of Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc) and then get angry when I don't allow something that absolutely doesn't fit. Why? Dip number three they need at 9th level is entirely dependent on that feat. Bad DM.... That is what I am basing my opinion on. A person wants to play a talking slug? Great, have at it. Just reflect for a moment the way the rest of the world will see your character. Discussing the character build before bringing it into play would be most helpful and that is indeed not a Playground problem.


I'd also like to note that whenever threads on "pulling one over" appear, the first few replies almost always contain at least one remonstration against such carelessness, or a caution against ruining games to make a point, or whatever. The Playground is not that irresponsible, even if some posters are.

You are right, I have seen people post such warnings and advice to talk things over. I have also seen DMs and fellow players called names and disparaged due to the account of whatever complaining player happened to write.


Not sure where you get this idea, 'cause the most often used line in this forum (At least from my experience) is 'talk it over with your group/DM/player'

I developed that opinion based on the last three months of reading posts. Your experience may indeed differ from mine.


So the problem is not the XP penalty, it is the lack of abilities for melee class at higher levels.

And without using 3rd party sources or lots of House Rules there is no way to remedy this without removing the penalty?

My take-away from this thread is simply most posters have chosen to ignore the rule as they see it as obstacle to character development: mostly non-casters.


And each of those threads are responded with sensible answers to. Like "sort out Our issues by talking to your dm instead of powertripping" or the like. It is not as if there aren't hundreds of power builds, guides or handbooks already out there.

There are hundreds of guides and handbooks: some really good and some not so good. And I must again differ in my opinion than yours: I have seen threads where there were no sensible answers. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. What irks me at times is how fast people will jump to conclusions without knowing, or caring, about the whole picture.

[TuggyNE]

Part of my problem, and the source of my opinion, is based on House Rules and some of the terminology used here that I am unfamiliar with. What is the difference for example between a "Rule 0," "DM Fiat," and "House Rule?"

Rule 0 is the basis for DM fiat, which is essentially on-the-fly rulings that change or add or remove rules with no prior warning or agreement. A houserule is a pre-arranged change to the rules, and all involved are aware of it (and may thus discuss possible problems with the change) ahead of time.


I can only relate to what I have seen in the few months I've taken the time to look at posts here and there. And my opinion does not actually follow what you say is not merely wrong but offensive. I will let a player run any character concept (usually based on that entirely different and generally orthogonal aspect: build power level) they want: but it has to fit the campaign being played. Players will show up wanting to pull feats from eight different published works (out of Eberron, Forgotten Realms, etc) and then get angry when I don't allow something that absolutely doesn't fit. Why? Dip number three they need at 9th level is entirely dependent on that feat. Bad DM....

Out of context, it's impossible to tell whether they're upset because that makes their concept unworkable (as in "less effective than a TWF Ranger with 6 Str and no weapon finesse"), or because they can't have all teh uberleetzor pwr they want. The difference is whether they're aiming for roughly the same power level as the rest of the party, or whether they're trying to substantially surpass them. In either case, the frustration comes because they've spent considerable time figuring it out, only to have their work nullified after the fact; this is best avoided by clear communication beforehand and during building.


And without using 3rd party sources or lots of House Rules there is no way to remedy this without removing the penalty?

No.


My take-away from this thread is simply most posters have chosen to ignore the rule as they see it as obstacle to character development: mostly non-casters.

Pretty much, yes.


There are hundreds of guides and handbooks: some really good and some not so good. And I must again differ in my opinion than yours: I have seen threads where there were no sensible answers. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. What irks me at times is how fast people will jump to conclusions without knowing, or caring, about the whole picture.

Occupational hazard of the Internet, sadly. Well, really, life in general ("the one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him"). Not gonna claim the Playground is immune, but there's a decent population of mature, respected, and frequent posters that make a substantial effort to gather more information and read between the lines.

[Big Fau]

Thank you for your example. Would the penalty stop this build or just slow it down? I can certainly see how the character would fall behind the others. And if the casters were not being it with the penalty (not needing to dip) they would get that much further ahead of the rest.

Part of my problem, and the source of my opinion, is based on House Rules and some of the terminology used here that I am unfamiliar with. What is the difference for example between a "Rule 0," "DM Fiat," and "House Rule?"

The penalty could easily render the build non-viable. The penalty means it takes 3 additional encounters to level up per level (it takes approximately 13.33 encounters for a party to gain a level, according to the DMG); after 3/4 levels the Swift Hunter/Daring Outlaw build would be 2 levels behind. The DMG does have a rule about awarding a lower-level character more XP for being behind the party, but this is negated by the penalty. This ensures they will be 2 levels behind the party for a majority of the mid-levels and all of the high levels. This is a death knell to a noncaster.

Rule 0: The rule is causing a problem due to either bad editing or due to a personal house rule, and the DM overrides that rule. The DM does this to make the game run smoothly, and it only occurs during gameplay.
DM Fiat: The DM invents a rule where none was before, such as adding a racial restriction to the Assassin PrC or removing the Improved Sunder requirement from the Blackguard PrC. Adaptation sections presented with a class or PrC are subject to DM Fiat, but are also official WotC-stances on the matter and more likely to be used by optimizers.
House Rule: Something presented to the players before the game begins (including the DM's rules for character creation). House rules are often the result of previous Rule 0s, or even another DM's Rule 0 rulings.

[Maginomicon]

I always house-ruled it as a stacking 80% of XP gained per class. That's not so bad then. 80%, 64%, 51.2%, 40.96%, 32.768%, 26.2144%, 20.97152%, 16.777216%, etc.

It's worth noting that the "Advanced Adventurer" described in the "Ecology of the Adventurer" article in Dragon Magazine #342 page 60 has no less than 8 base classes, none of which cause an XP penalty by RAW. At least they can laugh at themselves about it.

[Pickford]

The idea is to have one level in each class (so that there is no XP penalty), and then to level one of them up third level, so that the penalty would only set in at that point (i.e. level 13).

In which case you would suddenly be faced with a penalty of over 100% to your XP. However that works.

Hrm, given awareness of this rule, why not just develop the character evenly, or not dip so broadly? (i.e. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire). It's not like the player is incapable of foreseeing the upcoming XP penalty as a consequence of his actions. I guess I'm of the opinion that, if he foolishly pursues this path despite knowing the consequences, gets what he deserves.

That all being said, experience is probably the single most homebrewed portion of the game.

[Big Fau]

That all being said, experience is probably the single most homebrewed portion of the game.

Ability score generation beats it I think.

And some builds (like Grapplers) deeply benefit from 1-2 level dips into various classes. Those dips cause problems as sometimes the Favored Class doesn't match up. The penalty is usually around 20-40% on those builds though, not the ludicrous 100% that is hypothetically possible.

[Pickford]

Ability score generation beats it I think.

And some builds (like Grapplers) deeply benefit from 1-2 level dips into various classes. Those dips cause problems as sometimes the Favored Class doesn't match up. The penalty is usually around 20-40% on those builds though, not the ludicrous 100% that is hypothetically possible.

What system do you think is getting homebrewed so much???

From what I can tell point buy is most common, and that's in the DMG.

[TuggyNE]

From what I can tell point buy is most common, and that's in the DMG.

Well, lessee. There's point buy (15, 20, 25, 28, 32, 34, 36, 40, 52, 60), and then PF-style point buy (10, 15, 20, 25, 30?), and then one-for-one point buy (starting at 8, or 10, or 12), and then 27-25-23 roll-and-subtract, and 5d6b3 six times, and 5d6b3 seven times pick best six, and 4d6b3 six times, and 4d6b3 seven times pick best six, and 6d6b3, and 6x6 4d6b3 matrix pick one from each row/column, and 4d6b3 best of group shared, and 3d6 reroll until you get something you like, and arrays (18, 16, 13, 12, 10, 7; elite; nonelite; standard), score-pair summing (Str+Con, Dex+Wis, Cha+Int; one category sums to 29, another to 23, another to 20, or any other triple), and 3d12b2 in order, and 2d6+6, and 3d6b2+6, and 1d10+8, and 5d4, and 6d4b5, and 6d6 pool to add to stats starting at 10, and d6 to select which stat to bump until you exceed PF point buy, and 4d6b3 six times in each of three arrays pick best, and 4d4+4 in order, and ….

All of those are actual methods that I've heard of people using.

[Curmudgeon]

I believe the intent of the designers was to use favored classes to support archetypes: certain races have a historical and cultural tendency which makes them better than others at fulfilling particular roles (classes). However, the implementation was backward: an awkward penalty for using non-favored classes rather than a bonus for going along with the archetype. And they gave a single-class "out" to ignore favored classes. So, all in all, a wretched implementation.

I've experimented with removing that single class exception, so you always take the 20% XP penalty if you don't use the favored class; and Humans retain the penalty if the primary class has full spellcasting. It's astonishing how popular Elves really are, under that altered rule. :smallwink:

[Pickford]

Well, lessee. There's point buy (15, 20, 25, 28, 32, 34, 36, 40, 52, 60), and then PF-style point buy (10, 15, 20, 25, 30?), and then one-for-one point buy (starting at 8, or 10, or 12), and then 27-25-23 roll-and-subtract, and 5d6b3 six times, and 5d6b3 seven times pick best six, and 4d6b3 six times, and 4d6b3 seven times pick best six, and 6d6b3, and 6x6 4d6b3 matrix pick one from each row/column, and 4d6b3 best of group shared, and 3d6 reroll until you get something you like, and arrays (18, 16, 13, 12, 10, 7; elite; nonelite; standard), score-pair summing (Str+Con, Dex+Wis, Cha+Int; one category sums to 29, another to 23, another to 20, or any other triple), and 3d12b2 in order, and 2d6+6, and 3d6b2+6, and 1d10+8, and 5d4, and 6d4b5, and 6d6 pool to add to stats starting at 10, and d6 to select which stat to bump until you exceed PF point buy, and 4d6b3 six times in each of three arrays pick best, and 4d4+4 in order, and ….

All of those are actual methods that I've heard of people using.

I've bolded the one in the DMG (technically 20 is 22, but close enough), hrm never seen some of the more esoteric ones. Still, I've never been in a game that used the XP system or XP penalties, so that's still more of a constant re: my experience.

[Big Fau]

I've bolded the one in the DMG (technically 20 is 22, but close enough), hrm never seen some of the more esoteric ones. Still, I've never been in a game that used the XP system or XP penalties, so that's still more of a constant re: my experience.

Sometimes the penalty just doesn't come up or gets forgotten (easy to do in a long-runner). When people realize it they usually agree that it's too much of a headache to redo the relevant character's XP and just ignore it again.