Multiclass Penalties?

[Elandris Kajar]

Why do they exist? While the fluff makes minuscule amounts of sense, I cannot understand why wizards would penalize people for tolerating cool and interesting characters, especially with a lack of capstone access and such.

Please understand, I'm not raging against their use (well kinda) but instead unsure why they exist. Any ideas?

[HeadAcheron]

I may not have played personally yet, but everybody I've read online has said to just ignore those for the reasons you just described.

[Amphetryon]

Why do they exist? While the fluff makes minuscule amounts of sense, I cannot understand why wizards would penalize people for tolerating cool and interesting characters, especially with a lack of capstone access and such.

Please understand, I'm not raging against their use (well kinda) but instead unsure why they exist. Any ideas?

It's a legacy issue. Previous editions required various hoop-jumping exercises for PCs of particular Races to Multiclass at all. The 3.0 designers used the Multiclass Penalties as a variation on those hoops, possibly due to concerns that the various combinations would prove more powerful than any single Classed PC. I know I have heard this explanation as to why the previous editions used the hoops they did.

[Elandris Kajar]

Ok that seems legit

[Zanos]

For what it's worth, I have never played with a DM that actually enforced the multiclassing XP penalties. It's not like I avoid the DM's who use them intentionally either. They're nearly universally reviled.

[RedMage125]

For what it's worth, I have never played with a DM that actually enforced the multiclassing XP penalties. It's not like I avoid the DM's who use them intentionally either. They're nearly universally reviled.

I did, ONCE.

It was with a group still playing 3.5e after 4e came out b/c the DM didn't care for it. He enforced Multiclassing penalties. But once the group became higher level and he found himself having to do a different XP calculation for A) all the guys that were level 15 w/no XP penalty, B) the guys who were level 15 WITH a penalty, C) The guys who were level 14 (due to death and resurrection) with no penalty and D) The guys who were level 14 with a penalty, he decided it was more hassle than it was worth, and abandoned the practice entirely.

Otherwise, yes, throughout the entire rest of my 3.0/3.5 experience, no DM (including myself) has ever used them.

[Troacctid]

But once the group became higher level and he found himself having to do a different XP calculation for A) all the guys that were level 15 w/no XP penalty, B) the guys who were level 15 WITH a penalty, C) The guys who were level 14 (due to death and resurrection) with no penalty and D) The guys who were level 14 with a penalty, he decided it was more hassle than it was worth, and abandoned the practice entirely.

This is my big problem with it. It's just a huge pain in the neck to do all that extra math.

[ManicOppressive]

And frankly, it doesn't have a lot of effect for any optimized multiclassing. Figuring that most optimized builds will either be human or based around the favored class of the race they choose, (or human) you're not looking at many that will even have one experience penalized multiclass. Even with one, the experience penalty isn't really enough to do anything but make them level up one or two encounters later than the rest of the party.

And UN-optimized characters are likely to be made weaker by multiclassing, not stronger, so giving them an extra nerf is pretty unnecessary.

[Thanatosia]

They do make a certain sense to me from a game design perspective. Part of good game design is making it so that the game actively encourages you to play it the way it's intended to be played. A character who dips into dozens of classes feels 'gamey' and unorganic in many cases, esp when it's done to min-max. By putting an encouragement to stick to a single class archtype, you create a disincentive to having everyone walk around a random hodgepodge of classes and stick to strong core fantasy archtypes. I don't think it's well implimented or even overall good for the game, but I can see a clear philosophy behind the concept of including something like it.

[Troacctid]

They do make a certain sense to me from a game design perspective. Part of good game design is making it so that the game actively encourages you to play it the way it's intended to be played. A character who dips into dozens of classes feels 'gamey' and unorganic in many cases, esp when it's done to min-max. By putting an encouragement to stick to a single class archtype, you create a disincentive to having everyone walk around a random hodgepodge of classes and stick to strong core fantasy archtypes. I don't think it's well implimented or even overall good for the game, but I can see a clear philosophy behind the concept of including something like it.

It doesn't really do anything to discourage you from dipping into a dozen classes. A character who dips into a dozen classes will probably have no multiclass penalty. It's more about penalizing characters who dip into just one class.

[DrMotives]

The thing I find left wondering is once you ignore it, what do you do with the favored class for each race? Are people adding skill points or hp like Pathfinder, or just not having any favored class advantage at all?

[Troacctid]

I ignore the favored class rule. It's just not really an important rule. Races are going to naturally favor certain classes because of their ability score modifiers; I don't think you need much more than that.

[Thanatosia]

It doesn't really do anything to discourage you from dipping into a dozen classes. A character who dips into a dozen classes will probably have no multiclass penalty. It's more about penalizing characters who dip into just one class.
You're still arguing the results, which I don't disagree with, my point is that there is a valid game-design logic behind penalizing multiclassing, but it was poorly implimented, and probably redudant as the game inherently seldom rewards multiclassing mechanically.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder threw it out as a stick and went with a (imo) more elegant carrot approach. You can multiclass to your heart's content there without hurting your progression, but sticking with just the one class rewards you with favored class bonuses (either two standard ones, or alternate bonus ones from your choice of race). In addition, many classes have class features that won't scale fully if you multiclass out. But there are also many classes where you can pick abilities that don't need scaling to be effective, so if the concept you have in mind requires multiclassing you can pick one of those without feeling like you're missing out.

They also introduced a system called Variant Multiclassing, which allows you to pick a small collection of secondary class features that scale with your character level rather than your class level. For instance, if you go VMC Rogue, you will end up with 4d6 sneak attack, trapfinding, uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge no matter what your build ends up being otherwise.

[Buufreak]

For what it's worth, I have never played with a DM that actually enforced the multiclassing XP penalties. It's not like I avoid the DM's who use them intentionally either. They're nearly universally reviled.

To date I have had about 5 DMs, and only 1 used it. The same guy also used DMPC and Deus ex shenanigans to solve every issue that looked like it was even going 1% south.

[Zanos]

Pathfinder threw it out as a stick and went with a (imo) more elegant carrot approach. You can multiclass to your heart's content there without hurting your progression, but sticking with just the one class rewards you with favored class bonuses (either two standard ones, or alternate bonus ones from your choice of race). In addition, many classes have class features that won't scale fully if you multiclass out. But there are also many classes where you can pick abilities that don't need scaling to be effective, so if the concept you have in mind requires multiclassing you can pick one of those without feeling like you're missing out.

They also introduced a system called Variant Multiclassing, which allows you to pick a small collection of secondary class features that scale with your character level rather than your class level. For instance, if you go VMC Rogue, you will end up with 4d6 sneak attack, trapfinding, uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge no matter what your build ends up being otherwise.
Eh, Pathfinder went too far in the other direction. There are very few good builds in Pathfinder that aren't Base Class 20. Between PrCs being generally less relevant and multiclassing being less attractive, build variety was significantly reduced. I don't think people need an incentive to not multiclass, I think it makes for unique and interesting combinations.

VMC is tremendously unbalanced from the brief look I took at it. What you get from the different classes in VMC isn't remotely equal.

[AvatarVecna]

The multiclassing penalties are a carry-over from previous editions, like alignment limitations, that are an attempt to preserve game balance and limit choices to what the designers want people to play story-wise.

The 'mechanical limitations' point is pointless, because optimizers can find ways around such things, such as a using Human to ignore the penalties that would accrue for a two-class character (such as a Swift Hunter build, which is most commonly Scout 3-4/Ranger X, or most theurge builds, be they a Mystic Theurge, Sacred Fist, Arcane Archer, Ultimate Magus, or what have you), or just not caring because they're taking a single base class (Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are powerful without dips or PrCs, even in Core, and PrCs just make things worse).

The 'story limitations' point is pointless too: anything character concept where the only reason it's not allowed is "because WotC thinks you shouldn't be allowed to" is likely a super-awesome concept. The idea of Samurai Jack is super-cool, right? Katana-wielding badass? Hell yes. Unfortunately, if you're not going the simple route and making him a Cloistered Cleric who pretends to be Samurai Jack, you need to go more along the lines of Monk/Paladin/Fighter, and somehow work your way into Iaijutsu Warrior along the way. Sure, that PrC is awesome when abused, but multiclassing penalties will have you dragging behind on a character that needs to be ahead in order to be a threat to mages, which is the whole point of the character.

Beyond all that, it makes the DM have to do even more math...unless, of course, they're a DM who's thrown out the CR/XP rules and just does things based on what they think will work for their party, but that makes their enforcement of multiclass penalties even odder.

[Willie the Duck]

You're still arguing the results, which I don't disagree with, my point is that there is a valid game-design logic behind penalizing multiclassing, but it was poorly implimented, and probably redudant as the game inherently seldom rewards multiclassing mechanically.

Except for dipping, which in 3.0, where the system was set up, was at least something of a problem, what with the front loaded classes. Still, I agree that it was a balancing factor and rules check which turned out not to matter much.

I wish the 3e designers were more available and forthright about the history of that era of the game's design. I would love to know how much of the things we find odd about 3e wa a case of "we really thought X would be a big problem, so we did Y, but it turned out that Z was the big issue and we would have done things different if we had known."

[Zanos]

The 'story limitations' point is pointless too: anything character concept where the only reason it's not allowed is "because WotC thinks you shouldn't be allowed to" is likely a super-awesome concept. The idea of Samurai Jack is super-cool, right? Katana-wielding badass? Hell yes. Unfortunately, if you're not going the simple route and making him a Cloistered Cleric who pretends to be Samurai Jack, you need to go more along the lines of Monk/Paladin/Fighter, and somehow work your way into Iaijutsu Warrior along the way. Sure, that PrC is awesome when abused, but multiclassing penalties will have you dragging behind on a character that needs to be ahead in order to be a threat to mages, which is the whole point of the character..
As far as I know Jack's only abilities are hitting stuff with a sword real good and being athletic. Not sure why you need a complicated multiclass to model him.

[AvatarVecna]

As far as I know Jack's only abilities are hitting stuff with a sword real good and being athletic. Not sure why you need a complicated multiclass to model him.

1) Anti-mage mechanics. Pulling that off with a bog-standard Fighter or Samurai is less believable than somebody with at least a decent Reflex/Will...only slightly, but still.

2) Fluff. Jack isn't a bog-standard Fighter, and the Samurai fluff close to the right lines, but it's non-core (it also sucks, but that's the previous point), and there's Core stuff that fits the fluff as well.

3) It's only an example. Jack is a character that doesn't really fit into a particular box, but I suppose he could be emulated well enough through less problematic builds. That doesn't change the fact that putting multiclass restrictions in for fluff reasons is a stupid idea, it just means I couldn't think of a more fitting example of why it's stupid idea off the top of my head.

[Psyren]

Eh, Pathfinder went too far in the other direction. There are very few good builds in Pathfinder that aren't Base Class 20. Between PrCs being generally less relevant and multiclassing being less attractive, build variety was significantly reduced. I don't think people need an incentive to not multiclass, I think it makes for unique and interesting combinations.

Bold is false - the build variety simply went to archetypes instead of class frankensteining. You can for instance have a whole party in PF consisting of Bard 20s where all of them play significantly differently from one another via archetypes.


VMC is tremendously unbalanced from the brief look I took at it. What you get from the different classes in VMC isn't remotely equal.

The same is true of classes themselves, so why would VMC be any different? What you get from a wizard is significantly different than what you'd get from a barbarian after all.

[Uncle Pine]

Multiclass penalties are there because the creator thought that making Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 20/Archmage 5/Epic 4 (or a Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 14 if you're playing 1st-20th) was such a good idea that there should've been a rule to motivate people to make similar builds.

[John Longarrow]

Back in the blue book days, you didn't have the option for more than one class.
With Advanced, the concept of multi-classing was introduced as something non-humans could do. Humans were able to dual class, but there were a lot of limits on what you got exps for. To keep non-humans from dominating they also included level caps for non-humans in most classes.

Fast forward to 3rd edition. Since everyone was either ignoring the restrictions already or was using them to justify a human-centric game, the game designers kept them as a way to avoid multi-classing by non-humans unless it was in connection with their races 'Favored' class.

In practice it almost never comes up. Seldom does a player want to invest more than two levels in a class unless there's a very good reason. In most of those cases they will want to take a lot more than two levels. The big exception I keep seeing is with Swashbuckler with has a good 3rd level ability.

The other time they come up is when you want to play a race that doesn't have as a favored class the one you really want to use. I see this over and over with builds to get into Ur-Priest.

For the most part, I just ignore them when I DM, but I know DMs who use them.

[Amphetryon]

Bold is false - the build variety simply went to archetypes instead of class frankensteining. You can for instance have a whole party in PF consisting of Bard 20s where all of them play significantly differently from one another via archetypes.

So, your claim is that there are as many Archetypes in PF as there are PrCs in 3.5, relative to where PF is in its design cycle? I'd like to see the math on that, because I do not believe it. Unless the math actually shows otherwise, I tend to agree that the sheer variety of builds available is reduced.

[Jon_Dahl]

I always use multiclassing XP penalties.

[ryu]

I always use multiclassing XP penalties.

Why? No seriously. Not even trying to confront. I'm genuinely curious what your motive is for doing that.

[Apricot]

It seems like it was meant to put some kind of limitation on people just grabbing all the cool stuff from every class with no regard to roleplaying or making the character interesting... which sort of seems to have happened anyway. I think there are other little attempts at penalty-for-poor-roleplay mechanics in the edition, such as alignment restrictions and tight PrC entry requirements, but none of them seem particularly to have worked. There's also an element of preemptive balance concerns in there as well, with the general idea appearing to be "We've just tested the game for these base classes and some basic multiclassing, so we want to make sure they don't do anything crazy with several classes that we didn't plan for." That also seems to have fallen through, with the optimization for spellcasters in particular escaping multiclass issues and instead going straight into crazyland through other means.

Overall, I think the restrictions there were a valiant but misguided effort to get people to play the game "well." The fact that I need to put that in quotes is why it's so misguided. Drop 'em, but don't forget why they seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Necroticplague]

1. Because the designers, despite writing re-fluffing into the rules (I at least remember the section on skills), weren't very big fans of it. They tended to view classes as practically being in-game labels. Thus, those with more than a couple are seen as implausible special snowflakes. So they tried to discourage it. Under a more sensible view of classes as entirely OOC bundles of abilities, this is an absolutely idiotic idea.

2.A horrible idea of balance, and no freaking idea how to achieve it. They probably assumed that if you were dipping around, you were trying to take advantage of something for power. And thus, that increase in power should come with an appropriate cost.This is, in theory, pretty sound. Unfortunately, the things they did don't really amount to this for several reasons.
a:the assumption is wrong. If you're dipping, it's because you want a specific ability. This isn't necessarily one that's more powerful than normal (and since multiclassing involves being lower leveled into the class, it's most likely actually weaker).
b: xp is a river. 'nuff said.
c: The way the system is set up doesn't really catch the most severe multiclassers, while punishing relatively mild cases. Fighter 5/Ranger5/Wizard 10 gets a hit. fighter2/barbarian2/rogue2/wizard2/archivist2/factotum2/cleric2/monk2/warblade2/sorceror2, on the other hand, doesn't.

[OldTrees1]

The difference between Fighter(Zhentarim, Dungeoncrasher) 10 and the 9th level Barbarian(Spirit Lion, Whirling Frenzy, Wolf Totem) 2 / Fighter(Dungeoncrasher) 2 / Swordsage 1 / Rogue (Martial) 2 / Swordsage +1 / Warblade 1 is why multiclass penalties exist. (The first has a density of ~7/10 and the second has a density of ~10/9)

The difference between Wizard 10 and Fighter 10, and the multiclass penalties not affecting the above example are why people ignore the multiclass penalties.

[Apricot]

Could I ask what "density" means here? I haven't seen it used in the context of classes before, and it intrigues me.

[OldTrees1]

Could I ask what "density" means here? I haven't seen it used in the context of classes before, and it intrigues me.

Density is a subjective measurement about how many level worthy abilities are gained per level. For instance Barbarian 1 gives both Pounce and Rage/Large Size(Mountain Rage)/Extra Attack(Whirling Frenzy). I consider Pounce and the Extra Attack to both be level worthy and thus Barbarian 1 has a density of 2/1. However Barbarian 3 only gains Improved Trip(Wolf Totem) so it ends with 3/3. Most martial classes(even ToB classes) lose density as they gain in level (pretty universally despite the subjective nature of the measurement). Thus multiclassed martials (especially dipping ToB) tend to have higher density.

So some kind of multiclass cost mechanic would make sense IF straight classed Fighter were the balance baseline.

[Apricot]

Oh, I see. That's rather clever. I can see how it would be difficult to codify, but it's still a very useful concept to manipulate.

[Psyren]

So, your claim is that there are as many Archetypes in PF as there are PrCs in 3.5, relative to where PF is in its design cycle? I'd like to see the math on that, because I do not believe it. Unless the math actually shows otherwise, I tend to agree that the sheer variety of builds available is reduced.

His claim was actually "significantly reduced" - a subjective measure. I'm thus more than capable of having a difference of opinion in it, particularly since I understand PF enough to know the wide variety of archetype, subfeature, VMC andother combinations possible even in a "Class 20" build.

But even if you want to go with pure math, PF is designed to be backwards compatible, so you can import all of the 3.5 combinations and then some. X+Y > X, where Y > 0.

[Boci]

But even if you want to go with pure math, PF is designed to be backwards compatible, so you can import all of the 3.5 combinations and then some. X+Y > X, where Y > 0.

That's no longer PF vs. 3.5 though, that's 3.P.

[Âmesang]

I keep trying to think of an "in story" explanation for the penalties… like a character focusing on two wildly "different" sets of skills/abilities/what not that they're pulling themselves apart trying to keep themselves together. :smalltongue: "Butter scraped over too much bread," or some such thing.

Like, if a scientist class prestiged into nuclear physicist, that'd be a natural progression; but if a scientist multiclassed into janitor (inspired by Groundskeeper Willie or Stanley Spadowski, perhaps), the two concepts are so different from each other that he'd have trouble learning how to install a toilet main while also remembering how to smash atoms… and eventually something's got to give.

It's also the kind of explanation I give for cross-class skill ranks. A nuclear physicist reading Plumbing for Dummies on the weekends isn't likely to be as good as a professional plumber who's spent years at his craft; he'll still be passable and, if given enough time (character levels), could surpass plumbers brand-new to their profession.

Or… something. I'm not saying it make sense or that I agree, that's just my internal explanation for these things. :smalleek:

[Psyren]

That's no longer PF vs. 3.5 though, that's 3.P.

3.P was an explicit design goal of PF, so I don't see a meaningful distinction when doing this comparison. It's an avowed selling point of the system.

[OldTrees1]

Oh, I see. That's rather clever. I can see how it would be difficult to codify, but it's still a very useful concept to manipulate.

A similar thing can be used for calculating reasonable RHD/LA for races. Just use "worth a level" rather than "level worthy" for LA equivalent abilities.

[Boci]

I keep trying to think of an "in story" explanation for the penalties… like a character focusing on two wildly "different" sets of skills/abilities/what not that they're pulling themselves apart trying to keep themselves together. :smalltongue: "Butter scraped over too much bread," or some such thing.

Like, if a scientist class prestiged into nuclear physicist, that'd be a natural progression; but if a scientist multiclassed into janitor (inspired by Groundskeeper Willie or Stanley Spadowski, perhaps), the two concepts are so different from each other that he'd have trouble learning how to install a toilet main while also remembering how to smash atoms… and eventually something's got to give.

It's also the kind of explanation I give for cross-class skill ranks. A nuclear physicist reading Plumbing for Dummies on the weekends isn't likely to be as good as a professional plumber who's spent years at his craft; he'll still be passable and, if given enough time (character levels), could surpass plumbers brand-new to their profession.

Or… something. I'm not saying it make sense or that I agree, that's just my internal explanation for these things. :smalleek:

The problem is an Elf Fighter 2 / Ranger 4 takes multiclass penalties, which is weird because that's a fairly coherent character concept, a fighter who was formally trained in sword art but then had to adapt to a more fluid hit and run in the wild style (or vice versa). However an elf warlock 1 / dragonfire adept 1 / binder 1 / incarnate 1 / barbarian 2 isn't taking any multiclass penalties.


3.P was an explicit design goal of PF, so I don't see a meaningful distinction when doing this comparison. It's an avowed selling point of the system.

But then you just have 3.P, there is no 3.5 and PF as separate entities, so there's only one thing so making a comparison is difficult.

[CharonsHelper]

For what it's worth, I have never played with a DM that actually enforced the multiclassing XP penalties. It's not like I avoid the DM's who use them intentionally either. They're nearly universally reviled.

Does it matter? Martials will generally either stay single classed until they go prestige or dip 1-2 levels in multiple classes. Casters do the former.

Prestige classes don't count towards the penalty, and they're generally much more powerful, so once you hit level 6-8 the rest of your levels will likely be in prestige classes.

If your build will have penalty issues - just make sure that you're a human/half-elf or pick a race with the appropriate favored class. It's generally a non-issue.

[Boci]

Prestige classes don't count towards the penalty, and they're generally much more powerful, so once you hit level 6-8 the rest of your levels will likely be in prestige classes.

Only in 3.0. The rule wasn't reprinted in 3.5 IIRC.

[Necroticplague]

Only in 3.0. The rule wasn't reprinted in 3.5 IIRC.

I thought the SRD was 3.5? All the different sources for it that I'm seeing have that rule still in place.

[Boci]

I thought the SRD was 3.5? All the different sources for it that I'm seeing have that rule still in place.

Not the hard copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide, unless I'm missing something.

[Zanos]

3.P was an explicit design goal of PF, so I don't see a meaningful distinction when doing this comparison. It's an avowed selling point of the system.
3.P is as much 3.5 as it is Pathfinder. To include content from 3.5 as a point for Pathfinder when comparing the systems is a bit ridiculous. And I agree that Archetypes, in addition to not being particularly customizable, still provide less variety than class "Frankenstein." If an archetype is bad it's worthless, with 3.5's more dip friendly building you can mix and match classes.


Does it matter? Martials will generally either stay single classed until they go prestige or dip 1-2 levels in multiple classes. Casters do the former.

Prestige classes don't count towards the penalty, and they're generally much more powerful, so once you hit level 6-8 the rest of your levels will likely be in prestige classes.

If your build will have penalty issues - just make sure that you're a human/half-elf or pick a race with the appropriate favored class. It's generally a non-issue.
You're getting to the crux of why they're bad without even realizing it. They don't matter for what are generally the mechanically best builds, like full casters with PrCs, martial initiators or humans in general, but punish more fringe builds/races.

[Psyren]

3.P is as much 3.5 as it is Pathfinder. To include content from 3.5 as a point for Pathfinder when comparing the systems is a bit ridiculous. And I agree that Archetypes, in addition to not being particularly customizable, still provide less variety than class "Frankenstein." If an archetype is bad it's worthless, with 3.5's more dip friendly building you can mix and match classes.

For starters, there is no actual game anywhere called "3.P." You're either playing Pathfinder where you've followed the devs' recommendation to port forward 3.5 material, or you're playing a houseruled version of 3.5 that incorporates other games. We use that unofficial term merely as shorthand.

Second, you don't actually lose anything by dipping in PF either. There are bonuses for sticking with one class, but you wouldn't have gotten any of those bonuses in 3.5 anyway, so to consider them a loss is specious. 3.5 punishes you for via XP penalties if you multiclass (aside from your race's favored class that is), but does not reward you with any favored class bonuses if you don't. If you want to make a frankenstein dip build in PF you're free to do so (and incur no XP penalties for doing it), there's just more reason not to.


But then you just have 3.P, there is no 3.5 and PF as separate entities, so there's only one thing so making a comparison is difficult.

It's not difficult for me.

[Boci]

For starters, there is no actual game anywhere called "3.P." You're either playing Pathfinder where you've followed the devs' recommendation to port forward 3.5 material, or you're playing a houseruled version of 3.5 that incorporates other games. We use that unofficial term merely as shorthand.

The point is is that comparing 3.5 and PF to 3.5, is as meaningful as comparing 3.5 and PF to PF, which is to say not very.

[RedMage125]

Only in 3.0. The rule wasn't reprinted in 3.5 IIRC.

The updated rules clarifications on the WotC site has the devs acknowledging that it was an error that they left it out of the 3.5e DMG. It is supposed to be in there.

[Psyren]

The point is is that comparing 3.5 and PF to 3.5, is as meaningful as comparing 3.5 and PF to PF, which is to say not very.

If sheer number of build combinations is the desired end point (which it seemed to be for him), then combining the two is indeed the best approach. Pointing that fact out is indeed meaningful.

[Amphetryon]

If sheer number of build combinations is the desired end point (which it seemed to be for him), then combining the two is indeed the best approach. Pointing that fact out is indeed meaningful.

Combine it with other games and you'll get even MORE options!

[rrwoods]

Combine it with other games and you'll get even MORE options!

Are you being deliberately pedantic?

Yes, it's possible that PF without 3.5 has fewer viable options than 3.5 (which I think Psyren still disagrees with). But "PF without 3.5" isn't how PF was designed to be played; therefore, making such a comparison has no practical value. Your argument that comparing PF (with 3.5, as intended) against 3.5 alone is meaningless... is academic at best.

EDIT: on topic, there was someone here that responded that they used multiclass XP penalties, and I'm still interested to hear what the reasoning is.

[Boci]

The updated rules clarifications on the WotC site has the devs acknowledging that it was an error that they left it out of the 3.5e DMG. It is supposed to be in there.

Cool, that makes sense. Not that it matters too much, I've never found a DM who actually enforced them for prestige classes.


If sheer number of build combinations is the desired end point (which it seemed to be for him), then combining the two is indeed the best approach. Pointing that fact out is indeed meaningful.

Pointing that out is, trying to compare 3.P to either half (3.5 or PF) isn't.

[SangoProduction]

His claim was actually "significantly reduced" - a subjective measure. I'm thus more than capable of having a difference of opinion in it, particularly since I understand PF enough to know the wide variety of archetype, subfeature, VMC andother combinations possible even in a "Class 20" build.

But even if you want to go with pure math, PF is designed to be backwards compatible, so you can import all of the 3.5 combinations and then some. X+Y > X, where Y > 0.

"significant" is subjective. "reduced" is not.

[ryu]

"significant" is subjective. "reduced" is not.

When talking in numbers significance isn't even subjective anymore. Number of significant figures defined in measurement is one of the most core principles in many scientific fields. All that is required is for the person talking to define a significance parameter.

[Psyren]

When talking in numbers significance isn't even subjective anymore. Number of significant figures defined in measurement is one of the most core principles in many scientific fields. All that is required is for the person talking to define a significance parameter.

If the definition can change depending on who you ask, how is that not subjective? :smallconfused:

Also, rrwoods gets it.

[gtwucla]

I understand the thought behind creating a penalty for multi-classing, but I'm generally against anything that deals with XP. I thought wizards should have done a better job motivating players to stay with one class, by making scaling abilities and having a number of choices for the player so the characters of the same class can be different from each other.

I mean if you set aside the fact that it is a game, and think of it in terms of a story or a living world, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have characters with a million of classes/jobs. As they say, jack of all trades, master of none.

[squiggit]

I mean if you set aside the fact that it is a game, and think of it in terms of a story or a living world, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have characters with a million of classes/jobs. As they say, jack of all trades, master of none.

But if you set aside the fact that it is a gam eand think of it in terms of a story or living world the concept of classes disappear and a character with a million of classes is just as reasonable as any other because that combination of classes is less a strict combination of defined more classes and more an aggregate way to define a character concept that exists beyond class.

In such a story/living world, the wizard/fighter is not necessarily a spellcaster who suddenly dropped everything to learn to swordfight or a warrior who suddenly decides to the go to the academy, but simply a way to express a specific sort of battlemage.

And so on.

[Snowbluff]

I've never seen them enforced, and I've never had to enforced them. As long as the levels of your unfavored base classes are close, it doesn't apply.

So with 3.5 humans and prestige classes being common, I've never seen a build played that uses them in person. :o

[Necroticplague]

I mean if you set aside the fact that it is a game, and think of it in terms of a story or a living world, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have characters with a million of classes. You know the whole idea of the jack of all trades, master of none.

1. Generally, I find that jack of all trades aren't multiclassed that much. Generally, I find multiclassing is used to actually make someone more specialized, not less. I find that fighter/rogue to be a sneaky fighter is less common than barbarian/fighter for a really good fighter.

2. Only if you think that classes exist as in-world constructs. If you just view them as bundles of abilities, it can often make perfect sense. Someone who augments there own unarmed combat through supernatural augmentation might be something like penetrating strike invisible fist monk 2/fighter 4/soul eater 7/thayan gladiator5/LA 2, but is still a relatively cohesive concept.

[Elandris Kajar]

Anyone have a good counterargument detailing positive aspects?

[Snowbluff]

Anyone have a good counterargument detailing positive aspects?

I think the only three reasons would be:
1) Competitive balance. Multiclass characters can be stronger than the sum of the parts. (Of course, this doesn't work/apply to properly built casters, who use PrCs instead).
2) Fluff. Multiclass characters are atypical. Having certain races be better than picking up certain training (like elves are natural wizards)
3) Deterring complex builds, in order to lower character creation time and increase focus on the other aspects of the game.

So there are crunch, fluff, and meta perspectives. Personally, I don't buy it. Whatever.

[Elandris Kajar]

Okay, seems to make sense. Still don't see a reason to actually enforce them, but I can understand why wizards would do such a thing.

[ryu]

If the definition can change depending on who you ask, how is that not subjective? :smallconfused:

Also, rrwoods gets it.

No not really. The reason being that the significance parameter is based on the accuracy of your measurement tools. As I'm assuming you'd be showing builds considered viable and likely to appear individually? Counting whole numbers.

[Psyren]

No not really. The reason being that the significance parameter is based on the accuracy of your measurement tools. As I'm assuming you'd be showing builds considered viable and likely to appear individually? Counting whole numbers.

"Viable" is another subjective term as it depends on exactly what the campaign entails. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, your own optimization floor for what would meet that definition is quite high.

[ryu]

"Viable" is another subjective term as it depends on exactly what the campaign entails. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, your own optimization floor for what would meet that definition is quite high.

Number of builds you two would bring up is based on what you each would consider viable. Remember I'm not a side in this argument. I'm just taking issue with the use of language technicalities to declare the entire argument subjective and thus moot despite the fact that that's one of the oldest and tiresome ploys on the entire internet. While viable is a subjective criterion the significance of the numbers brought up is entirely objective. If you want I can even show you some post-hoc statistical tests that would tell you if the numbers were far enough apart to be different because of difference in experiment rather than pure chance.

[Anlashok]

Remember I'm not a side in this argument. I'm just taking issue with the use of language technicalities to declare the entire argument subjective and thus moot despite the fact that that's one of the oldest and tiresome ploys on the entire internet.

So is "I'm not taking a side even though I'm clearly taking a side" though.

[ryu]

So is "I'm not taking a side even though I'm clearly taking a side" though.

Not on the base point of the argument I'm not. Just with one of the argument methods being used. I couldn't care less about the actual debate they were having if I tried. I just have certain individual tactics I'm against on principle.

[Snowbluff]

Not on the base point of the argument I'm not. Just with one of the argument methods being used. I couldn't care less about the actual debate they were having if I tried. I just have certain individual tactics I'm against on principle.

It's okay, ryu with a lower case "r." I have this problem, too.
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b630/Snowbluff/giphy_zpsvouq5ey5.gif

[ryu]

Now see Snowbluff, I'm just fine with your ideological struggle with the uncapitalized nature of my name. I respect it. Thing is I didn't put a great deal of effort into the thing and was just making a quick join up avatar at the time. That is also why it's three characters long. I like to think my persona around here is more heavily based on a series of long running jokes, habits, stories, and character methodologies.

[Snowbluff]

Now see Snowbluff, I'm just fine with your ideological struggle with the uncapitalized nature of my name. I respect it. Thing is I didn't put a great deal of effort into the thing and was just making a quick join up avatar at the time. That is also why it's three characters long. I like to think my persona around here is more heavily based on a series of long running jokes, habits, stories, and character methodologies.

It's Distinctive, with a capital "D."

I actually think ryu is a cool name. I do wish you had your own avatar, though. D:

[ryu]

It's Distinctive, with a capital "D."

I actually think ryu is a cool name. I do wish you had your own avatar, though. D:

Never was much for complex illustrations. Maybe I'll swing by the custom avatar thread sometime in the future if I start hankering for a new project.

[Snowbluff]

Never was much for complex illustrations. Maybe I'll swing by the custom avatar thread sometime in the future if I start hankering for a new project.

That's where I get mine. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

Number of builds you two would bring up is based on what you each would consider viable. Remember I'm not a side in this argument. I'm just taking issue with the use of language technicalities to declare the entire argument subjective and thus moot despite the fact that that's one of the oldest and tiresome ploys on the entire internet. While viable is a subjective criterion the significance of the numbers brought up is entirely objective. If you want I can even show you some post-hoc statistical tests that would tell you if the numbers were far enough apart to be different because of difference in experiment rather than pure chance.

It's not a "ploy", it's stating the obvious. If anything, the true ploy here is attempting to introduce the statistical definition of "significant" in a discussion that had nothing to do with statistics previously. (Which, incidentally, is still subjective - it depends on the specific alpha being sought, which was not previously defined.)


So is "I'm not taking a side even though I'm clearly taking a side" though.

:smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

I am content to disagree, I have no desire to write and publish a peer reviewed paper regarding this.

[ryu]

Again Psyrem I don't care about your actual debate or its result. I'm specifically against the thing you're doing in that debate and bringing a similar level of annoying pedantic argument tricks just to show what it's like to be on the other side of it.

[Psyren]

I am content to disagree, I have no desire to write and publish a peer reviewed paper regarding this.

Agreed.


Again Psyrem I don't care about your actual debate or its result. I'm specifically against the thing you're doing in that debate and bringing a similar level of annoying pedantic argument tricks just to show what it's like to be on the other side of it.

Again ryu, there's no "tricks," "ploys," "tactics" or whatever other antagonism you've chosen to ascribe to my posts. If that doesn't satisfy you, we might be better served just putting each other on ignore and getting on with our respective lives.

[ryu]

Agreed.



Again ryu, there's no "tricks," "ploys," "tactics" or whatever other antagonism you've chosen to ascribe to my posts. If that doesn't satisfy you, we might be better served just putting each other on ignore and getting on with our respective lives.

A workable compromise.

[atemu1234]

Could I ask what "density" means here? I haven't seen it used in the context of classes before, and it intrigues me.

It's usually used for class features- how many are spread out over the class, and at which levels.

[OldTrees1]

It's usually used for class features- how many are spread out over the class, and at which levels.
And (most important factor) how worthwhile those features are.

[gtwucla]

But if you set aside the fact that it is a game and think of it in terms of a story or living world the concept of classes disappear and a character with a million of classes is just as reasonable as any other because that combination of classes is less a strict combination of defined more classes and more an aggregate way to define a character concept that exists beyond class.

In such a story/living world, the wizard/fighter is not necessarily a spellcaster who suddenly dropped everything to learn to swordfight or a warrior who suddenly decides to the go to the academy, but simply a way to express a specific sort of battlemage.

And so on.

That makes sense, though I tend to think of classes as roles or jobs in the world, but I suppose that is highly dependent on the specific world and how many class options you have. I think the more options you have, the less it makes sense to have defined classes.

[Quertus]

For the record, I always play with XP penalties for having a non prestige class more than one level off from the rest of the character's non favoured classes. Because it is a rule. And no-one has presented an argument that has convinced me that is important enough to change that rule that I should make a house rule to change it.

That having been said, I also don't calculate XP more than once - which means everyone needs to stay the same level. If you want to craft items, use item components, don't spend XP. If you die, bring in a new character at the party's level with the exact same number of XP as the rest of the party, or choose a method of resurrection that won't leave you a level behind the party. So, similarly, don't build a character that takes an XP penalty. Not that any of my players ever would.

[TheIronGolem]

For the record, I always play with XP penalties for having a non prestige class more than one level off from the rest of the character's non favoured classes. Because it is a rule. And no-one has presented an argument that has convinced me that is important enough to change that rule that I should make a house rule to change it.


Have you considered looking at it from the other side, and asking if the issue is important enough to justify keeping this rule? Because I think the case for keeping it is far weaker, especially since the strongest argument in its favor seems to be "it's already there".

[SangoProduction]

For the record, I always play with XP penalties for having a non prestige class more than one level off from the rest of the character's non favoured classes. Because it is a rule. And no-one has presented an argument that has convinced me that is important enough to change that rule that I should make a house rule to change it.

That having been said, I also don't calculate XP more than once - which means everyone needs to stay the same level. If you want to craft items, use item components, don't spend XP. If you die, bring in a new character at the party's level with the exact same number of XP as the rest of the party, or choose a method of resurrection that won't leave you a level behind the party. So, similarly, don't build a character that takes an XP penalty. Not that any of my players ever would.

You mean being more off a hassle than it's worth (for both the GM and players), not adding anything, not impacting most if any actually optimized builds, and only harming those who don't want to deal with optimization aren't good enough reasons? Then there's nothing else to discuss. Rules for rule's sake isn't a great argument. Rules for sake of balance, or for the sake of beauty or simplicity are.


Have you considered looking at it from the other side, and asking if the issue is important enough to justify keeping this rule? Because I think the case for keeping it is far weaker, especially since the strongest argument in its favor seems to be "it's already there".

What this guy said.

[gadren]

The one time I played with multiclass xp penalties was way back when 3.5 Living Greyhawk was a thing. For the LG campaign, xp penalties were enforced, but it actually made the balance WORSE. Characters with xp penalties stayed at lower levels longer, and therefor got to play more adventures at each level, and therefore accrued more treasure and other rewards than anyone else of their level. The delicious cherry on top was that if you planned ahead of time, you could design your character to accrue a 100% xp penalty at the level cap, so that you would never be forced to retire your character.

As for me as a GM, I stopped using xp altogether a LONG time ago. I converted xp costs for spells and powers to gp costs just like PF did (but years earlier), and just have characters level up after 10 standard encounters (with hard encounters counting as two encounters, and easy encounters counting as half or no encounters).

[Waazraath]

Our groups always used them, simply because they were in the rules. I'm familiair with the arguments against them, and agree that for game balance, XP penalties don't have any worth. The one positive thing I'd say about them, is that they make the 'game in the game', that is, character building, more challanging. For me, that's a good thing, cause I like the 'puzzle' getting more difficult. I understand though that for others it's a good thing.

No player I've ever seen used a build that actually got an XP penalty. It's just too severe, so people in my games always used builds that avoided it.

[Starbuck_II]

Did anyone realize it is possible to multiclass in such a way that you can't get exp if you use the penalties rule?

3rd Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc =60%
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc=80%
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc =100%

[Necroticplague]

Did anyone realize it is possible to multiclass in such a way that you can't get exp if you use the penalties rule?

3rd Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc =60%
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc=80%
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock Orc =100%

Yes. Someone upthread even mentioned some people abusing this fact.

Where is gets confusing, however, is if you have
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock/1st Factotum Orc =120%
Do you lose XP for overcoming challenges?

[DrMotives]

Yes. Someone upthread even mentioned some people abusing this fact.

Where is gets confusing, however, is if you have
3rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock/1st Factotum Orc =120%
Do you lose XP for overcoming challenges?

Before you answer that, you have to explain how the orc got past the 100% penalty stage to reach the 120% penalty stage.

[Psyren]

Before you answer that, you have to explain how the orc got past the 100% penalty stage to reach the 120% penalty stage.

Retraining? Gain two more levels in the same class at 80% and then retrain them to 120% maybe...

[Necroticplague]

Before you answer that, you have to explain how the orc got past the 100% penalty stage to reach the 120% penalty stage.

He was a 2rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock/1st Factotum Orc, who had no penalty (since all his classes are within 1 level of each other). Then, he took another level in Dragon Shaman. He was never at the 100% stage, he went straight from 0 to 120 (the fact this is possible being another reason the rules are pants-on-head stupid).

[SangoProduction]

He was a 2rd Dragon Shaman/1st Duskblade/1st Rogue/1st Fighter/1st Wizard/1st Warlock/1st Factotum Orc, who had no penalty (since all his classes are within 1 level of each other). Then, he took another level in Dragon Shaman. He was never at the 100% stage, he went straight from 0 to 120 (the fact this is possible being another reason the rules are pants-on-head stupid).

Still, does it not amuse you that you are actually getting dumber and less skilled by taking that level?