DMs: Do you use the Exp Penalty rule?

[LentilNinja]

Just a survey to see how many DMs do and how many don't, since I've heard so much about DMs not using it.
I get the feeling mine might use it solely to stop power gaming (something he hates with a passion). What do you guys think?

[Story]

Are you referring to multiclass penalties? Because if so, it's a horribly broken rule that does nothing to stop powergaming.

[Theomniadept]

Personally no, the most powerful class is Wizard and Prestige Classes do not count for multiclass penalties and as such any multiclassing is purely done out of either roleplaying or wanting to play something mechanically subpar but interesting.

[Keneth]

I'm pretty sure almost no one uses that rule.

Hell, I don't even use XP anymore. Players are always too concerned with how much XP they're getting.

[Zanos]

Are you referring to multiclass penalties? Because if so, it's a horribly broken rule that does nothing to stop powergaming.
Yep. Never used it, never will. It adds nothing to the game.

[TheIronGolem]

Terrible rule, stopped using it years ago.

[eggynack]

It's actually a rule that actively pushes the player towards powergaming. The most powerful builds are the casters running prestige classes, and the builds that run multiclassing generally do best with short one and two level dips, which completely bypasses the issue. Thus, some of the only builds that are actually hurt by this are the ones that were already bad. Therefore, terrible rule. It's also a terrible rule because it stifles potential builds in a pointless way. Nothing good comes of this.

[Knaight]

Heck no. I don't even use experience if I can avoid it*, and my desire to add another layer of accounting on top of that somehow doesn't seem to exist. Particularly for something as arbitrary as punishing concepts that happen to not have classes that connect to them particularly well - it's not like it does anything to curtail power gaming, as Wizard 20 (possibly with prestige classes that totally dodge the penalty) is about as powerful as it gets.

*If the experience totals were more along the lines of 1-5 per battle and 20ish per level, along with being calculated more simply I might use them, but with the current mess of the system it's on my bad list. I like math, but accounting is not something I do for fun.

[Flickerdart]

Nope. It's the kind of rule that if it were enforced, nobody would do the thing, and not doing the thing means that I get to see a much smaller variety of characters in my campaigns.

[Keneth]

If the experience totals were more along the lines of 1-5 per battle and 20ish per level, along with being calculated more simply I might use them

Incidentally, that's what Pathfinder's XP system boils down to. A party of 4-5 adventurers needs exactly 20 average encounters to achieve the next level. Of course, in practice it's exactly the same accounting job as the one in 3.5. At least there you knew exactly how much XP you needed for your next level. Combine that with an entirely non-functional CR system, and you've got yourself a bloody mess.

In all honesty it's better just to toss all of it out the window. It's needlessly complicated and serves no purpose, especially not in PF where XP is no longer used for anything and all PCs have the same amount.

[rexx1888]

on a side note, whether intended or not i get the impression that games with xp keep dms honest. Which isnt a problem if your dm's amazing, but still

[Keneth]

games with xp keep dms honest

DMs are under no obligation to be either honest or fair. Their job is to make the game fun and challenging.

I got tired of arguing with DMs and players about XP. No XP equals no arguments. You never feel cheated when the CR is deceptively low, or when a DM decides to award XP arbitrarily, and the character progression is always at the right pace.

[cakellene]

DMs are under no obligation to be either honest or fair. Their job is to make the game fun and challenging.

I got tired of arguing with DMs and players about XP. No XP equals no arguments. You never feel cheated when the CR is deceptively low, or when a DM decides to award XP arbitrarily, and the character progression is always at the right pace.

But is playing under an unfair, cheating DM an experience most people would call fun?

[squiggit]

i get the impression that games with xp keep dms honest.

I actually feel the opposite. In a game with XP I can throw XP at people arbitrarily at a DM, evaluate encounters in weird ways, and do weird XP burning shenanigans.

In a game with DM defined progression it's easier to keep everyone at the same level of power, it's harder to feel cheated because "That should have totally gotten me XP/not gotten him XP" and if the DM throws an overly powerful encounter your way (without you provoking it) he can't argue you just weren't leveled enough because he controls level progression.

I will say though that playing D&D without XP makes things like item creation and LA buyoff a bit weirder.

[137beth]

No. It hurts the people who don't need extra penalties, and adds more record keeping for no benefit. I also stopped tracking individual PC's xp--the group has one xp total, and levels up when their total xp is (party size*what it needs to be for one PC to reach the next level). Easier when the party splits up or someone misses a session, and largely the same otherwise (I also converted xp costs for spells and crafting into comparable gold costs, so that isn't an issue either. The party can decide among themselves how to pay for material component costs and items.)

[cakellene]

No. It hurts the people who don't need extra penalties, and adds more record keeping for no benefit. I also stopped tracking individual PC's xp--the group has one xp total, and levels up when their total xp is (party size*what it needs to be for one PC to reach the next level). Easier when the party splits up or someone misses a session, and largely the same otherwise (I also converted xp costs for spells and crafting into comparable gold costs, so that isn't an issue either. The party can decide among themselves how to pay for material component costs and items.)

Would LA buyoff be converted to gold?

[hemming]

I never enforce multiclass penalties but do keep penalties on magic item creation/scribing

From a fluff perspective more than anything, it never made sense to me to lose XP when training in something else but somehow made sense that creating a magical item would require you to 'put some of yourself' into that item

[Kristinn]

I used it the first time I was DM. Since then I've realized, like many have said before, that it doesn't balance the game at all. I understand that some people might feel that someone who takes one level of Barbarian for Rage, and possibly Pounce and/or Improved Trip, then takes two levels of Fighter for bonus feats, and a level of Cloistered Cleric for Knowledge, Animal and Travel devotion should be penalized for "playing the system".

But the cold hard fact of the matter is that the best way to "play the system" is to follow the system, given, of course, that the path you choose is that of a full caster. The notion of balance in D&D 3.5 is so completely misconceived that any rule that pretends to enforce such a balance is misdirected.

[Keneth]

But is playing under an unfair, cheating DM an experience most people would call fun?

What you don't know can't hurt you, right? :smalltongue:

Lying, cheating, and scamming are all useful tools in my DM repertoire. But it's not about what tools you have, it's how you use them.

[eggynack]

I used it the first time I was DM. Since then I've realized, like many have said before, that it doesn't balance the game at all. I understand that some people might feel that someone who takes one level of Barbarian for Rage, and possibly Pounce and/or Improved Trip, then takes two levels of Fighter for bonus feats, and a level of Cloistered Cleric for Knowledge, Animal and Travel devotion should be penalized for "playing the system".

Actually, doing that doesn't incur XP penalties, because all of your classes are within one level of each other. It's usually only the poorly planned or constructed builds that get hit, because most multiclassing is done in a manner similar to the way you've presented it..

[Knaight]

on a side note, whether intended or not i get the impression that games with xp keep dms honest. Which isnt a problem if your dm's amazing, but still

Sure, but it's worth noting that there are a number of different ways to award experience, and the D&D way is an accounting heavy mess. It's really typical to have something such as getting 1 experience for showing up, 1 for good roleplaying, 1 for defeat of a particularly important enemy, etc. all awarded at the end of the session. In some games, this is even decided by the players, who pick one of them for exceptional roleplaying, being particularly useful, whatever. It's a bit too metagame for some, but it does nicely demonstrate that the D&D way is a pain.

For instance, in 3.5 you could do something like this: 40 experience to level. 2 experience for an easy challenge, 3 for a typical challenge, 5 for a hard challenge - do not divide this per person involved. Combat and traps generally count as a challenge. Sure, this does require some GM arbitration, but the same thing applies to CR - a DM might say that a particular fight is easy when it seems hard, and thus give less experience, but you can do the exact same thing by using a CR 13 in place of a CR 16 when the CR 13 could totally wipe the floor with said CR 16 as the system is all wonky.

In short - nobody is particularly against experience here, though it still gets dropped as it sometimes isn't preferable. The particular mechanics involved? Those have detractors.

[Zombimode]

No, not even in a thousand years I would use this rule. It doesn't have anything to do (and no effect on) powergaming and it stifles creativity. It does not only add nothing to the game, it actually has a detrimental effect on it.

[Brookshw]

i get the impression that games with xp keep dms honest.

It does what now?

Don't think I use it, certainly don't pay any attention to it.

[Jon_Dahl]

I use it because I use everything that is humanocentric.

[Der_DWSage]

Never have, and it's doubtful that I ever would. Though I had toyed with the idea that full casters that don't dip out would get the penalty. (Haven't followed through with that thought, but let's face it. Who hasn't toyed with the idea of slowing down caster progressions to balance them against the party?)

[Karnith]

I used the multiclass XP penalty rule many years ago when I first started DMing, and dropped it at about the time that I realized it did nothing to penalize heavy multiclassing (Fighter 2/Barbarian 2/Warblade 1/Crusader 1 incurs no XP penalty, for example), penalized organic character growth (did your character start out as a Rogue and want to branch out into Ranger or take on holy vows and become a Paladin because of campaign developments? Welp, better slap a penalty on you!), and did essentially nothing to restrain power levels (Monk 4/Fighter 1? Must be punished! Druid X? Yeah, that's cool).

[OverdrivePrime]

I've always thought that was a terribly stupid rule since I first saw it in 3.0. I don't use it and have never met a DM who does.


Though I had toyed with the idea that full casters that don't dip out would get the penalty. (Haven't followed through with that thought, but let's face it. Who hasn't toyed with the idea of slowing down caster progressions to balance them against the party?)

That's a really tempting idea!

[lytokk]

I would say I still use it, but none of my players have ever multiclassed that hard for it to come up. We do typically try and limit ourselves to 3 different classes however, but I've never turned someone down for wanting to add a 4th or 5th, but its rare for someone to want to try it. I guess we still do use it as a guideline, but we've also eliminated racial favored classes. I always felt that that rule was a little off, since everyone should be different.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Neither I nor any DM I've ever played with enforces it.

[Person_Man]

Nope. It's a holdover from 2nd edition, which had all sorts of wacky racial restrictions on multiclassing and duel classing.

RE: Power gaming

I't worth noting that, at low levels, heavy multi-classing generally yields better results compared to sticking with any particular class. For example, a Totemist 2/Binder 1/Crusader 2 is going to have a lot more resources and options compared to a Wizard 5, even though the Wizard 5 is ostensibly Tier 1. In this case, multiclass penalties make sense.

On the flip side, once you get to ECL 6ish+, any class with full progression in subsystem (spells, psionics, vestiges, soulmelds, maneuvers, wildshape) will want full progression of that subsystem, which lends itself to Class 20 or Class 5/Prestige Class 10/Prestige Class 5 builds. In this case, multiclass penalties penalize classes without a subsystem (Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, etc).

[Shinken]

Back when I ran 3.5, I used it. Don't miss it.

[hemming]

Neither I nor any DM I've ever played with enforces it.

When 3e was new and shiny and we first took it out of the box, my DM tried to enforce the multiclass rules. He ended up giving-up around level 6 due to overwhelming player demand (I also don't think he ever had any special attachment to that rule, but was trying to play close to the book w/ a new system)

I have since played with another group (although I left after a few months) that were a real "RAW is law" type that enforced the rule; the DM was in some type of math oriented profession and had the personality of a cardboard box, both of which were abundantly apparent in our sessions

[CoffeeIncluded]

Absolutely, positively not. No. Never.

[PsyBomb]

I run DM-declaration levels, and it works out fair. No worries about someone pulling ahead, no worries about funky builds being penalized, etc.

[dysprosium]

I have never used those rules nor has any DM I know.

I have been asked to implement them though . . .

[Honest Tiefling]

Nooooooooooooope. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXYMDu6dpY)

Heck, I haven't seen a DM care about it, either now that I think about it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I don't use them. As many others have posted, it doesn't help with real power gaming, and it's just a mess. I *do* go through the accounting mess that is the CR/XP system, with ad-hoc adjustments to CR based on the fact that my group is pretty dern high op.

[VoxRationis]

I haven't in the past, though I can't say I'm opposed to it. A lot of the "how can we optimize this the best" builds I've seen involve a lot of multiclassing, so I can see how it cuts down on powergaming.
And I can see why everyone talks about crafting shenanigans and nigh-unlimited contingent spells when no one keeps track of experience.

[eggynack]

I haven't in the past, though I can't say I'm opposed to it. A lot of the "how can we optimize this the best" builds I've seen involve a lot of multiclassing, so I can see how it cuts down on powergaming.
But those builds aren't really hurt at all. Crazy optimized diplomancy builds, which take single levels in different classes until 11 or so, face no XP penalty whatsoever. The same is so of optimized beatstick builds. It's a rule that cuts up on powergaming, forcing that barbarian 6/fighter 4/sorcerer 10 to start pushing their optimization more if they want to not lose XP.

[Story]

The best part is trying to figure out how to handle things when you're suddenly earning negative experience.

[Sewercop]

I haven't in the past, though I can't say I'm opposed to it. A lot of the "how can we optimize this the best" builds I've seen involve a lot of multiclassing, so I can see how it cuts down on powergaming.
And I can see why everyone talks about crafting shenanigans and nigh-unlimited contingent spells when no one keeps track of experience.

When you talk about TO contigent spells I assume people use the tricks to have a never ending supply of exp. So it doesn`t really matter.
Same goes for crafting..

Exp penalties does nothing than to increase the gaps between mundanes and gods. Good riddance.

[Yawgmoth]

I don't even use experience, much less multiclassing penalties. CR/EPL is such a boondoggle after level 7 anyways, trying to award XP based on those numbers is a joke.

[RolkFlameraven]

I did right up until feats like Daring outlaw showed up and suddenly I have an elf who has level's "stacking" for two classes but because he isn't favored in either he should be talking an exp hit :smallconfused:

[Ansem]

Players either dipped 1 level or never broke the range for those to apply, so for me no.

[killem2]

Are you referring to multiclass penalties? Because if so, it's a horribly broken rule that does nothing to stop powergaming.

Hyperbole much?

10% is nothing.

I use it.


The best part is trying to figure out how to handle things when you're suddenly earning negative experience.

Please tell me how this is happening. I would love to know how 10% static turns into 100% or more all of a sudden.

[PersonMan]

I never used it, not for balance reasons but because it made no sense in-game. You can be great at stabbing, sneaking and great at raging, but if you're only mediocre at raging it's suddenly harder to get better at stabbing and sneaking? What?

[VoxRationis]

I believe the in-game reasons behind it were that it's harder to make progress if you're also trying to learn something else at the same time.

[Flickerdart]

I believe the in-game reasons behind it were that it's harder to make progress if you're also trying to learn something else at the same time.
But it's the opposite.

A character learning both arcane magic and melee combat can alternate fighter and wizard his whole life and never take any XP penalty. A character who has progressed to his 10th level in wizard and then decides to pursue a full-time career as a fighter will suck on a big fat XP penalty.

[VoxRationis]

That was also addressed. The penalty is a holdover from some of the restrictions on dual-classing in AD&D, where they stated that the possibility of falling back on "old habits" and in particular the act of doing so reduced the necessity of learning the new abilities and thus hindered experience gain.
An analogy can be made for languages. If you are learning two languages as part of your childhood environment, it is fairly simple to do so; people become bilingual as a result of this commonly. It is a much harder thing to, having already become quite fluent in one language spoken in an area, try to pick up another language when the first language is still applicable. One has to constantly fight the tendency to fall back to one's native tongue. Now, the changes in brain structure and language acquisition between childhood and adulthood complicate the situation, but the basic analogy is still there.
(Of course, that penalty is never applied for language learning in D&D...)

[CrazyYanmega]

A well thought out arguement.

Now please explain "Favored Classes."

[Flickerdart]

If that were true, then a character who started with 4 levels of fighter and then took 2 levels of wizard and 14 more levels of fighter wouldn't gain any XP penalties for the last 14 levels because "falling back on old ways" is exactly what he's doing.

[VoxRationis]

Touche.
I have the feeling they hadn't intended that people would do that, but would go for fighter for six levels, then wizard for five or so, etc., and were trying to keep the matter simple. You brought up a good situation of how the rule fails; given what I've seen of people's builds, it seems to be a rarity, however. Unless there are some builds of which I'm unaware that involve returning to a class after a long stretch in a different one?

[Story]

Hyperbole much?

10% is nothing.

I use it.


It is nothing because optimized builds are not affected by the penalty. As pointed out many times already, the only thing the rule does is hose already weak builds.

Consider some optimized builds:
Human Binder 1/Wizard 3/Anima Mage 8
Halfling Ninja 2/Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Master Thrower 5
Changeling Totemist 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Warblade 1/Warshaper 5/Occult Slayer 2
Anthropomorphic Bat Druid 12

Notice anything in common? None of those builds have any XP penalties at any point, and yet are far more optimized then that poor Elf Monk 6/Fighter 5/Sorceror 1.






Please tell me how this is happening. I would love to know how 10% static turns into 100% or more all of a sudden.

It's not a static 10%. It's 20% per class. This means that you can have a penalty of up to 320%, or in other words, negative experience gain.

[CrazyYanmega]

At most a level 20 character would be taking a 60% penalty. 1 Fighter/4 Wizard/7 Druid/8 anything else.

[Story]

No, you can get a penalty of up to 320% at level 19. (It's not relevant at level 20 since you aren't leveling any more anyway).

Consider someone who goes

A 2/B 1/C 1/D 1/E 1/F 1/G 1/H 1/I 1/J 1/K 1/L 1/M 1/N 1/O 1/P 1/Q 1/A 1.

They've suddenly gone from a penalty of 0 to a penalty of 320%.

[Knaight]

A well thought out arguement.

Now please explain "Favored Classes."

A pointless side rule of little importance that can safely be discarded.

[eggynack]

No, you can get a penalty of up to 320% at level 19. (It's not relevant at level 20 since you aren't leveling any more anyway).

Consider someone who goes

A 2/B 1/C 1/D 1/E 1/F 1/G 1/H 1/I 1/J 1/K 1/L 1/M 1/N 1/O 1/P 1/Q 1/A 1.

They've suddenly gone from a penalty of 0 to a penalty of 320%.
I don't think you'd face any penalties there, because your highest level class and lowest level class are only one level apart. It'd need to be something like A 3/B 1/C 1... You'd only incur a penalty of 300%, in other words. The point stands, however.

[Story]

I don't think you'd face any penalties there, because your highest level class and lowest level class are only one level apart. It'd need to be something like A 3/B 1/C 1... You'd only incur a penalty of 300%, in other words. The point stands, however.

You missed the 3rd level in A at the end. I wrote it out to show the progression, since if you take the level in A earlier, you'll never get to level 19 in the first place.

[eggynack]

You missed the 3rd level in A at the end. I wrote it out to show the progression, since if you take the level in A earlier, you'll never get to level 19 in the first place.
Right. I was wondering why that was there.

[Story]

Incidentally, favored classes are also horribly dysfunctional. A halfling Fighter 3/Sorcerer 3/Rogue 1 has no penalties but a human does!

[TheIronGolem]

Incidentally, favored classes are also horribly dysfunctional. A halfling Fighter 3/Sorcerer 3/Rogue 1 has no penalties but a human does!

And the human is supposed to be the one who's better at multiclassing.

[VoxRationis]

Eh. But remember that the human's "favored class" can switch from class to class over the course of the same character's career. So while that specific scenario benefits the halfling more, a human can pick up a class late in their career without penalty, or even several in succession.

Also, prestige classes are multiclassing, so where is it written that prestige classes don't suffer from that penalty? I got the impression that this was true, but I can't for the life of me remember or find where it is written.

[Story]

I don't remember offhand, but I've been told it's in the rules compendium.

[Terazul]

I don't remember offhand, but I've been told it's in the rules compendium.

More like the basic SRD/DMG/etc. description of Prestige Classes.



Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.

And yeah, nobody I've ever played with used those rules. At most, they just have people rekerjigger their planned class levels if it was going to bother them, and otherwise it just does nothing except mess up someone doing something sub-par to begin with. Adds approximately zilch to the game.

[Boci]

Eh. But remember that the human's "favored class" can switch from class to class over the course of the same character's career. So while that specific scenario benefits the halfling more, a human can pick up a class late in their career without penalty, or even several in succession.

Okay, what about the fact that an elf fighter 4 / ranger 2 (a trained fighter with wilderness experience) has multiclassing penalties, but an elf / fighter 1 / barbarian 1 / rogue 1 / warlock 1 / factotum 1 / dragonfire adept 1 (a elf with a fascination with dragons, who was a thief when he was young and also learnt to fight and a lot...) doesn't?

Multiclassing penalties tend not to work.

[Calimehter]

In my last campaign, I ran E6 with (slightly modified) UA generic classes as the only options. There wasn't much point to keeping the XP penalty at that point. :smallbiggrin:

[Sewercop]

In my last campaign, I ran E6 with (slightly modified) UA generic classes as the only options. There wasn't much point to keeping the XP penalty at that point. :smallbiggrin:

Are there ever a reason to keep exp penalties?

[veti]

As has been mentioned, it's a relic from earlier editions when most characters were expected to pick a class (or combination) and stick to it. The whole "changing classes every other level" idea was only introduced in 3.0, and I think this mechanic was intended to gimp it and encourage people to play the traditional way.

There's no reason to keep it unless you want to (to encourage a particular style of play). And if you do want that, it's probably better just to tell the players up front what sort of builds will be allowed.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think a lot of 3e design ended up being passive aggression by committee:

MulticlassingIdea Man: What if we just let everyone multiclass freely? Each level would be its own unit of progression, and they could take any class, and you could have so many possibilities...
Grognard: But they're just going to powergame everything! You could have a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 who could cast spells and use swords, just like the broken dual classed Wizard/Fighters of second edition!
Compromiser: How about we let people take basically any class at each level, but they have to use a byzantine system of experience penalties. That way you can multiclass, but it takes luck and/or system mastery to get anything fun or useful out of it.
SorcerersIdea Man: What if we had a magic user, who cast... spontaneously? He'd trade away day-to-day versatility for strategic versatility. And maybe he gets more spells per day to make up for that tradeoff...
Grognard: That ruins the Vancian spirit of magic! And being able to fireball or lightning bolt all day is way overpowered!
Compromiser: What if we make this "sorcerer," but it's strictly inferior to wizards? Say, we delay the spell progression by one level, severely restrict the spells known, make the casting stat charisma, and get rid of the bonus feats. At odd levels specialist wizards basically cast the same number of spells per day, removing that advantage. That way you can play a spontaneous magic user, but it takes luck and/or system mastery to get anything fun or useful out of it.
Monstrous ClassesIdea Man: What if we let the players play monsters? It could make for some interesting play styles that older versions had a hard time supporting. In return they pay with levels in actual classes, maybe?
Grognard: That's not D&D! And besides, the players are just going to pick the most powerful options.
Compromiser: How about we allow players to use monstrous classes, but make sure the class levels they lose are almost always more valuable than the monstrous features they gain? That way you can play a monstrous PC, but it takes luck and/or system mastery to get anything fun or useful out of it.

[Yawgmoth]

Are there ever a reason to keep exp penalties? Gotta make sure your players aren't having too much fun; or even worse, having fun in ways the writers don't personally approve of!

[VoxRationis]

Restrictions on what your character can do provide challenge; without some sort of limit, there is no challenge, as you are given your victories on a silver platter, and that's no fun either. Though breezing through an encounter or two and reveling in your UNSTOPPABLE POWER can be fun, after a while it gets boring. Restrictions allow the characters to get challenged without a Lensman Arms Race. (At least in theory. In practice, you also need to keep casters from doing certain things, but that's really a handful of things.)

[eggynack]

Restrictions on what your character can do provide challenge; without some sort of limit, there is no challenge, as you are given your victories on a silver platter, and that's no fun either. Though breezing through an encounter or two and reveling in your UNSTOPPABLE POWER can be fun, after a while it gets boring. Restrictions allow the characters to get challenged without a Lensman Arms Race. (At least in theory. In practice, you also need to keep casters from doing certain things, but that's really a handful of things.)
Except these aren't well designed or balanced restrictions, especially as they actively incentivize you towards things that grant unstoppable power. Restrictions are not inherently good or bad, and these restrictions fall heavily on the terrible side of the spectrum.

[VoxRationis]

In that post, I was more speaking to the mentality of deeming restrictions as "not fun," rather than speaking for these particular restrictions. I apologize; it was a little confusing, especially as I had come out in favor of said penalty earlier in the thread.

[Story]

More like the basic SRD/DMG/etc. description of Prestige Classes.


It's in the SRD but not the DMG. Presumably the SRD got it from Rules Compendium, but I've never bothered to read the RC.

[Karnith]

It's in the SRD but not the DMG. Presumably the SRD got it from Rules Compendium, but I've never bothered to read the RC.
It's not in the RC, either; it was in the 3.0 DMG, but was accidentally omitted when they revised the DMG to 3.5. Then they re-included it as a part of the 3.5 SRD, but for reasons I don't care to contemplate failed to errata the rule back into the DMG.

[VoxRationis]

So THAT's why! I remember looking through the entire section in the DMG, as well as the intros to the Prestige Class chapters in the Complete series, during a boring day some time ago for that ruling and never finding it, yet you called it up so easily.

[Keneth]

Though breezing through an encounter or two and reveling in your UNSTOPPABLE POWER can be fun, after a while it gets boring.

People who love power trips never get bored of them. Trust me, I'm a doctor munchkin.

[mephnick]

This would require me to use XP at all, which is already an archaic fossil of table top gaming.

It's annoying extra book work that adds nothing to the experience.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Re: POWER TRIPPING WOOO

I'm totally fine with reasonable restrictions. That's what optimization is all about - having to try to succeed is the fun part. What I don't like are noob traps and needless accounting exercises, and that's what multiclassing XP penalties provide.