How Many Of You Actually Enforce Multiclass XP Penalties? [Archive]

LTwerewolf

2016-09-20, 02:08 PM

Nope. Never saw the point in reducing fun for people at the table. Had a dm that did though. He was a terrible dm for a few reasons, this one actually being the least egregious.

We had in the group a fighter/crusader multiclass suffering penalties. This player ultimately blamed me for him being unable to perform is desired role ("tanking").
We had a Daring outlaw suffering multiclass penalties. This player eventually figured out the dm was a problem in the way he was running the game.
We had a cleric->dracolyte not suffering multiclass penalties because prestige class.
We had my character a druid->planar shepherd not suffering penalties.

We can see how amazing the multiclass penalties are for keeping character balance.

"Aha! Planar shepherd must be the problem! It's an entirely broken prestige class!"

Well no, the only thing I used it for was for my character to sleep on his home plane (which was celestia). Outside of this, he didn't do a single thing a normal druid couldn't. The dm systematically, after several months into the game, started taking away all of my druid's abilities. Animal companion refused to fight anything because that's not what a regular animal would do. Doesn't matter what your handle animal check is. Spellcasting? It's now tied to a tree that gets ripped apart leaving me with spellcasting only every so often. Wild shape? Have to stick with the animals I knew about at level 1, which even though a few were in my backstory they didn't count.

Red Fel, that's the type of monster you're looking at that uses multiclass penalties.

Name1

2016-09-20, 02:08 PM

I don't enforce them and have never seen anyone enforcing them either...

LudicSavant

2016-09-20, 02:09 PM

I would never even consider using such a mad rule.

I don't. I'm just here to see if anyone else does. I've always wanted to see what a genuine human monster looks like.

You know, without looking in the mirror.

You know, I asked this exact same question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21165279&postcount=605) in the "Ridiculous Rules for RPGs" threads and some people actually came in and said that they supported the rule. So, if you want to see the genuine article... look at that thread. :smalleek:

Inevitability

2016-09-20, 02:13 PM

Never used them. The classes that are disincentivized to multiclass anyway are generally stronger than those who could use a few dips, so I don't see any reason to enforce them.

Not to mention that they make no sense fluff-wise (your fighter is now also a barbarian and suddenly has trouble learning while the druid who became an assassin levels as quickly as before).

The only argument I could find for allowing them was if I wanted favored classes to matter, but I've always found those to unnecessarily restrict gameplay.

Eladrinblade

2016-09-20, 02:21 PM

Title says it all. Most of the build discussion I've seen on this board and others of a similar bent have multiclassing out the yin-yang, and of all the groups I've been part of some people didn't even know the XP penalty was a thing and the rest thought it was some kind of variant rule rather than the default setting.

Does anyone actually enforce this thing? If so, do you do it as-written or with some minor variation, such as not having PrCs count against it?

I think prestige classes already don't count.

Anyway, if I play core games, yes, I do. The multiclassing rules are pretty lax as-is; you really do pretty much need to cherry pick to upset them.

I think some people don't realize that as long as your classes are within a level of each other, you're fine. So, an elf bard 3/rogue 2/fighter 2 has no xp penalty. A lot of people seem to think that you can't have a second class unless one of them is your favored class.

ace rooster

2016-09-20, 02:23 PM

LTwerewolf

2016-09-20, 02:27 PM

Sticking to the rules is a rookie mistake in 3.5, but an understandable one. It does not make a monster, though it might make a monstrous game.

If he had stuck to the rules in general I wouldn't have had an issue. The campaign was "his story" and if one of our abilities interfered with "his story" then it didn't work.

Kelb_Panthera

2016-09-20, 02:29 PM

I think prestige classes already don't count.

Anyway, if I play core games, yes, I do. The multiclassing rules are pretty lax as-is; you really do pretty much need to cherry pick to upset them.

I think some people don't realize that as long as your classes are within a level of each other, you're fine. So, an elf bard 3/rogue 2/fighter 2 has no xp penalty. A lot of people seem to think that you can't have a second class unless one of them is your favored class.

Yeah but if you're a bard 4/rogue 2 and neither is your FC then you loose 20% of your XP forever after unless you sac' another level in rogue.

Also, core only; eww.

Khedrac

2016-09-20, 02:29 PM

We use the multiclass penalities and it's rarely (if ever) been an issue.
But then, we are not big optimisers (I am probably the biggest optimiser of the group and I aim for fun or support characters).

Zanos

2016-09-20, 02:40 PM

I have never used them and never met a DM in person who thought they were a good idea.

Same thing with massive damage.

JeenLeen

2016-09-20, 02:51 PM

I think the 3.5 group I was in did enforce these, but

1) low-level, it didn't matter because we didn't MC or we stayed within the confines of no penalty

2)high-level, we were all Tier 1 casters who only MCed into PrC (which didn't count for penalties)
I think the only extreme MC included humans, which, if my memory serves, can have 2 classes with disparate levels without penalty.

Or maybe we used it as a rule at first, but forgot about it late-game. It seemed like an annoying but not too egregious rule when we were brand-new to 3.5.
If I joined a game now, I think I'd prefer no penalty because, if I had a build that suffered it, it would probably be low-op compared to Tier 1 caster, and I'd dislike being weaker after choosing a relatively weak build.

DarkSoul

2016-09-20, 02:54 PM

Title says it all. Most of the build discussion I've seen on this board and others of a similar bent have multiclassing out the yin-yang, and of all the groups I've been part of some people didn't even know the XP penalty was a thing and the rest thought it was some kind of variant rule rather than the default setting.

Does anyone actually enforce this thing? If so, do you do it as-written or with some minor variation, such as not having PrCs count against it?As has already been mentioned, prestige classes never provoke xp penalties.

I enforce the xp penalty. If not being able to cherry-pick class dips makes the game less fun for someone, so be it. Having groups full of characters that exist solely to maximize a single aspect of the game to the exclusion of (nearly) all else makes it less fun for me. Not that it's overwhelming; I just find rocket tag boring.

Psyren

2016-09-20, 02:54 PM

I play Pathfinder and 5e where they don't exist :smalltongue:

eggynack

2016-09-20, 02:58 PM

Multiclassing penalties aren't even something you usually come up against when optimizing. The vast majority of those dip heavy builds you mentioned probably don't get penalized, because melee classes are front heavy enough that you usually only take one or two levels, and casters don't typically multiclass at all. So, only less savvy multiclassers would ever get hit, which is one of several reasons that they're dumb.

Esprit15

2016-09-20, 03:05 PM

One DM doesn't do EXP (nobody ever crafts anyways, and the amount of casters, let alone casters that use EXP can be counted on one hand), the other nixed it shortly after the artificer died. Both think EXP penalties are stupid. On the other hand, both like massive damage, though tend to be more forgiving with it.

Vizzerdrix

2016-09-20, 03:11 PM

Ive been in several groups that use it, even one that hit you with it if you didnt take your races favored class. Boy oh boy did the dm of THAT game hate me after I pointed out i was supposed to get MORE xp for being lower level than the party. He also didnt like it when I started shoving bags of holding into other extra dimensional space next to his pet BBEGs. Good times

icefractal

2016-09-20, 03:13 PM

Don't use them, never been in a group that used them.

If their goal is to discourage multiclassing, they don't work.
Fighter 6/Barbarian 2 - Have some penalties, you filthy multiclasser!
Monk 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Ranger 1/... - A-Ok, no penalty.

If the goal is to make favored class important, they work ... oddly.
If you go straight Wizard 20, the fact that you are or aren't an Elf means nothing.
Where it matters is if you're a Wizard 18/Rogue 2 (or Rogue 18/Wizard 2).
So it's more like "favored class for mixing with others, but not for focusing purely on".

And balance wise, they don't accomplish anything.

LordOfCain

2016-09-20, 03:15 PM

I don't. I'm just here to see if anyone else does. I've always wanted to see what a genuine human monster looks like.

You know, without looking in the mirror.
You're human? I though you were just a 'bot programmed to dispense scarily accurate information about evil alignments.... Huh...

darksolitaire

2016-09-20, 03:26 PM

There's no need for a DM to use multi class penalties. You already control how much players get xp since you make the encouters, as well as any story xp. And if a single character is becoming too powerful, having a word with the player should fix that.

Honestly, only reason I can see anyone ever using them is being vindicative to some perceived munchkinry.

Tvtyrant

2016-09-20, 03:28 PM

I don't use XP, so no. If I was going to, I would probably just say "no multiclassing" or play a game where it doesn't exist rather then use such a shoddy punishment tool.

Waker

2016-09-20, 03:45 PM

I have never followed that rule. It seems utterly pointless to me. Although I never even use Xp in my games, I just tell the players to level up every few sessions, and crafting just costs money.
And Red Fel isn't human. He just has the (Human) subtype. Figuring out his actual creature type will require a Knowledge roll.

Zaydos

2016-09-20, 03:46 PM

I used them... 10 years ago when I was young and foolish. They do not help the game. Homebrewed theurge classes help the game more. Badly designed homebrew theurge classes help the game more.

That said...

Multiclassing was strong in 2e. It was closer to gestalt than 3e multiclassing (you averaged hp instead of took the better), and you paid for it with a level until high level games which I never saw one.

Dual-classing was strong in 2e. It looks more like the direct predecessor to 3e multiclassing. It required multiple 15s and 17s, the latter in stats that didn't help you early on. It was still strong if you ever managed it. There were other hoops you had to jump through, to do with XP gains.

Throw in that human's traditional benefit was the ability to be any class and to be dual-classed (they couldn't multiclass but note 3e multiclassing is closer to dual-classing).

The multiclass XP rule was born of the 2e rules, and it represented a fundamental lack of understanding about how different 2e and 3.x were and I am saddened and astonished it remained into 3.5. It penalizes what are normally weak builds. Penalizes playing usually subpar races (i.e. not human), does nothing to the most powerful multiclass combinations, not to mention that the most powerful builds are single class + PrCs.

erok0809

2016-09-20, 03:55 PM

I so don't use them that I'm not even sure what the actual rule is. I'm all for the players having power; I typically have a loose plot (maybe one session ahead planned, and the prfinal boss) and it's hard for the players to ruin it when it barely exists. On top of that, the stronger they are, the stronger I can make their enemies, and that means more fun for me. I'm easily the strongest optimizer in my gaming group, so they can't make it too hard for me to run my game. It's more fun for everyone this way.

Thurbane

2016-09-20, 04:22 PM

Every 3.X group I've played in enforce them, along with the rules about MOnks and Paladins not being able to progress further in their class if they multiclass out (although to be fair, hardly anyone in my group ever seems to multiclass anyway).

Eldonauran

2016-09-20, 04:22 PM

Title says it all. Most of the build discussion I've seen on this board and others of a similar bent have multiclassing out the yin-yang, and of all the groups I've been part of some people didn't even know the XP penalty was a thing and the rest thought it was some kind of variant rule rather than the default setting.

Does anyone actually enforce this thing? If so, do you do it as-written or with some minor variation, such as not having PrCs count against it?

Back when I used to play 3.5e (I've moved to Pathfinder long ago), I used to enforce the XP penalty, as well as have to constantly remind players that "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM." That helped keep a tight reign on the optimization ceiling. Once I became more familiar with the rules, the inherent issues with the system, and accumulated a large library of 3.5e books, I eventually decided to implement house-rules. One such rule was to let the player's level up when the story called for it, as well as require them to train with an NPC for that period. Never had to worry about Multiclass XP penalties again.

AnachroNinja

2016-09-20, 04:41 PM

Never used them, never will.

Also Red Fel is actually a complicated AI operating from Canada's Area 51

Palanan

2016-09-20, 04:43 PM

My first 3.5 group started in September 2003, and our DM always used the XP penalty as a matter of course, just another aspect of the rules. When I started running campaigns I used it as well, although for my longest campaign nearly all the PCs were single-classed. It was never really an issue, and certainly never the cause of any angst-ridden discussions.

These days I've been assimilated by Pathfinder, so it no longer comes up in my games. In my 3.5 experience it was pretty much a non-issue.

Bakkan

2016-09-20, 05:06 PM

Never used them; the only thing it does is discourage multiclassing, and multiclassing is no more or less likely to be problematic in any sense. On the contrary, many character concepts can only be properly realized via multiclassing.

Also Red Fel is actually a complicated AI operating from Canada's Area 51

Would that be Area 51A?

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-20, 05:08 PM

Also Red Fel is actually a complicated AI operating from Canada's Area 51Would that be Area 51A?No, it's Area 51, eh?

Necroticplague

2016-09-20, 05:36 PM

I was only ever in one group where they were enforced. Fortunately, all the people involved were either made by people intelligent enough to realize the perverse incentives and abuse the fact, or else didn't require any multiclassing anyway (i.e, the martials realized that they could avoid it by never taking more than two levels in a base class, and dipped around everywhere, while the casters only had one base class and one or two prestige classes).

Incidentally, the obviousness of the perverse incentives is one of the first reasons I think it's stupid. When the result of a rules against multiclassing is "a build with uneven mixing of two classes* is bad, but one that takes 2 levels in 10 different classes is fine", you've built something that fails on almost every conceivable level.

*= or one with an even mix of two classes, but that doesn't take alternating levels (i.e, a fighter 10/rogue1 will suffer all the way until they get to fighter10/rogue9)

MesiDoomstalker

2016-09-21, 01:21 AM

My group pays lip service to it. Despite the fact I should have incurred the penalty on every single character for every single encounter (barring low-levels where it is impossible to incur), I got the same amount of EXP as the rest of the party. It's honestly a poorly thought out rule whose intention is bad form to being with. Discouraging options does not a good rule make, especially when it discourages legit options (Mid-level Multiclassing) without hurting ludicrous options (Dips upon dips upon dips).

ekarney

2016-09-21, 02:09 AM

I don't actually enforce normal XP at all, just working out when the characters probably should level up because yeah, that seems reasonable. So trying to enforce an XP penalty would be impossible even if I wanted to.

Yeah same here, I'm reinstating xp for a couple of levels because one of my players got hit with a couple of negative levels and failed his save and I wasn't sure how I could help him regain his lost levels without xp and without it being weird.

The closest me, or any group I've ever been to enforcing the penalty has been with my current group, where we ran through a hypothetical build and then laughed at what the exp penalty would be. If any of us even bothered enforcing it.

I'm going to add an extra layer here and add in a hypothesis that the reason it's ignored is that both players and DM's don't want to deal with the excess book keeping.

Khedrac

2016-09-21, 02:12 AM

Something else to think about - in open campaigns, e.g. the late Living Greyhawk campaign the organizers had to cap multiclass xp penalties as people were abusing them!
Yes, people actively sought out getting the penalty as high as possible. I think some people managed 100%!

The reason is that adventures tended to hand out a fixed amount of gold and xp dependent on the level they were played at. This meant that if you had an xp penalty you got more gold per xp than a character without.
The xp penalties work by making characters level more slowly than their peers, but in a Living Campaign one can just go off and play with a lower level group (where one has the equipment advantage from that extra treasure) so that is a minor penalty at best.
Further, characters had to retire when they reached the campaign's level cap (16 for most of LG) and an xp penalty enables a character to be played for longer before retirement = win.
Crafting feats were popular for similar reasons - it slowed down advancement while making equipment improve faster.

So, is the penalty a bad thing? Well that depends on what you want to do...

Name1

2016-09-21, 08:54 AM

I would never even consider using such a mad rule.

You know, I asked this exact same question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21165279&postcount=605) in the "Ridiculous Rules for RPGs" threads and some people actually came in and said that they supported the rule. So, if you want to see the genuine article... look at that thread. :smalleek:

Oh... Oh wow...:eek:

I cringed the entire way though... this was... something else...
I think I'm gonna go to bed now, I'll need the rest even if this is gonna give me nightmares...

Inevitability

2016-09-21, 09:45 AM

Oh... Oh wow...:eek:

I cringed the entire way though... this was... something else...
I think I'm gonna go to bed now, I'll need the rest even if this is gonna give me nightmares...

Those people are justifying a fighter getting no XP at all from a huge battle because he used a rogue ability once during it. What. :smalleek:

Telok

2016-09-21, 06:18 PM

Those people are justifying a fighter getting no XP at all from a huge battle because he used a rogue ability once during it. What. :smalleek:

They aren't talking about a rogue (even if that's what they typed) they're talking about a thief. The old AD&D multi/dual classing and xp rules are a very different beast from modern D&D. Classes weren't ability bundles like they are now, they were more like a career or life path. And fights weren't very good xp anyways, loot provided most of the xp.

Zanos

2016-09-21, 06:37 PM

They aren't talking about a rogue (even if that's what they typed) they're talking about a thief. The old AD&D multi/dual classing and xp rules are a very different beast from modern D&D. Classes weren't ability bundles like they are now, they were more like a career or life path. And fights weren't very good xp anyways, loot provided most of the xp.
I think it's less that people are discussing it, and more that they seem to be defending it as a fair way to allocate XP for multiclass characters.

Zaydos

2016-09-21, 06:46 PM

I think it's less that people are discussing it, and more that they seem to be defending it as a fair way to allocate XP for multiclass characters.

2e dual-classing was a whole lot stronger than 3.x multiclassing, and also this penalty only applied until you were higher level in your new class than your old one. So if you were an 7th level fighter who swapped to cleric or wizard well before you'd normally have reached 9th level you'd be an 8th level cleric or wizard who could fight like a 7th level fighter (when that was still meaningful). Still couldn't wield non-cleric weapons due to holy vows or if a wizard cast spells in armor. Did hurt if you were leaving thief (as thief leveled up the fastest, and sucked).

Necroticplague

2016-09-21, 07:03 PM

2e dual-classing was a whole lot stronger than 3.x multiclassing, and also this penalty only applied until you were higher level in your new class than your old one. So if you were an 7th level fighter who swapped to cleric or wizard well before you'd normally have reached 9th level you'd be an 8th level cleric or wizard who could fight like a 7th level fighter (when that was still meaningful). Still couldn't wield non-cleric weapons due to holy vows or if a wizard cast spells in armor. Did hurt if you were leaving thief (as thief leveled up the fastest, and sucked).

In that context, the multiclassing penalty rules makes a disturbing amount of sense: it was built so the primary way they thought of to avoid the penalty (taking alternating levels in classes, so they were never more than 1 ahead of each other), is more or less the same way that you would minimize the penalties from dual-classing ('leapfrogging' them by taking alternating sets of two levels).

I mean, if I'm reading that right, the minimal penalties under both rules would be produced by the following build path:

classa 1->classa 1/classb 2->classa 3/classb 2->classa 3/classb 4->classa 5/classb 4.......

They never predicted the 'sir uber-dipsalot' method of avoiding the penalties, though.

Zaydos

2016-09-21, 07:36 PM

Yeah, it's why I had a piece about 'coming from 2e the logic behind the XP penalty made sense, it's just a dumb rule in the 3e rules set'.

That said you could never return to your old class when dual-classing. Meanwhile 2e multiclassing was automatically one to one (sort of, if you were a wizard/thief and really high level it wouldn't be because thief leveled faster than wizard).

Ultimately, though, it's a rule that fails to perform its stated purpose (prevent dips), is built upon a design philosophy thrown out of the rest of the system including everything that came later, and adds absolutely nothing to the game while not restricting anything that's over powered. Course I didn't realize these things until I had run a game where it did come up and had it for a long time be a thing that kept a pc going 1 to 1.

rrwoods

2016-09-21, 09:46 PM

As has already been mentioned, prestige classes never provoke xp penalties.

I enforce the xp penalty. If not being able to cherry-pick class dips makes the game less fun for someone, so be it. Having groups full of characters that exist solely to maximize a single aspect of the game to the exclusion of (nearly) all else makes it less fun for me. Not that it's overwhelming; I just find rocket tag boring.
If you find rocket tag boring, then why enforce a rule that incentivizes casting even more than it already is?

Multiclassing makes noncasters easier to play and basically doesn't affect the casting classes at all. By enforcing multiclassing penalties you effectively disincentivize noncasting builds.

RedMage125

2016-09-21, 11:13 PM

I have only ever played at one table where that rule was used and enforced. No one liked it, and the DM eventually got sick of doing the extra math as well, and even he abandoned it once that campaign was over.

When I was a newbie DM, back when 3.0 was first getting up off the ground (only 3 of the splatbooks had even been released), I decided to eliminate the XP penalty. However, I had replaced it with the idea of Race/Class restrictions, as per older editions (spoiler alert, I eventually did away with them, too). I had this idea that half-orcs only came from fringe towns or tribal societies, and that all paladins HAD to be trained in knightly orders. Oh, and I disliked the idea of the way sorcerers worked, so I restricted them to races that had draconic blood. Which for most races, meant going Bard/Dragon Disciple before one could even take the FIRST level in Sorc...or being a kobold.

I leaned away from that gradually. First by instituting a rule that an exceptional backstory and character concept would entice me to be lenient on my restrictions, and then eventually relegating all of said restrictions to "here's what's common in my world". Half-Orcs are still more common in small frontier towns and tribal societies, but people don't bat an eye when they see them in a big city. I still allow kobolds as a player race (but PC kobolds have a restriction, they MUST be from the city of Scalyheart, located in a volcano. Scalyheart kobolds are a little more civilized, look down on their lesser kin, are more well-kempt and clean, and have a +2 CHA, to make up for how crappy kobold racial mods are already).

Aetis

2016-09-22, 12:52 AM

lastoutkast

2016-09-23, 12:33 AM

Never, freedom to make a character of your choosing is the whole point of playing a fantasy game.

Melcar

2016-09-23, 06:36 PM

Never done it... Never will

darksolitaire

2016-09-23, 06:41 PM

I always have enforced the multiclass XP penalties.

Having said that, I have never seen anyone actually lose any xp from this rule.

I don't think it has any impact on the game, other than convincing everyone to play Human, which everyone does anyways.

Have you considered the possibility that people are avoiding the penalty, intentionally or not, in which case it does have impact to the game? :smallconfused:

martixy

2016-09-23, 06:43 PM

Do not even use XP... let alone multiclassing penalties.

BowStreetRunner

2016-09-23, 06:59 PM

I was a player in a game that did enforce the penalties. Had to drop out after my third child was born - that particular game started to conflict with too many other obligations. But I was seriously considering that if I had another character die and needed a replacement, I was going to play a Grey Elf Fighter 1/Warblade 1/Crusader 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Sorcerer 3. 100% XP Penalty. And no matter how many times that character would die, I would keep bringing a different version of the same character in.

Aetis

2016-09-23, 07:56 PM

Have you considered the possibility that people are avoiding the penalty, intentionally or not, in which case it does have impact to the game? :smallconfused:

I was also curious about that, so I went and told my players that the XP penalty rule was removed.

Their reaction was mostly "meh". One guy didn't know that such rule even existed.

It was kinda funny.

We are gonna go ahead and try to come up with builds that take advantage of the this, but I doubt that this rule was somehow power-limiting.

BowStreetRunner

2016-09-23, 08:02 PM

We are gonna go ahead and try to come up with builds that take advantage of the this, but I doubt that this rule was somehow power-limiting.
And that's just the point. The rule does nothing really purposeful for the game. It's not like there are completely broken multi-class builds that suddenly become available when you remove the rule. The only thing it ever stifled was creativity. A few players with concepts they wanted to try out were discouraged from using those builds, that's all.

Zaydos

2016-09-23, 08:05 PM

Aetis

2016-09-23, 08:15 PM

And that's just the point. The rule does nothing really purposeful for the game. It's not like there are completely broken multi-class builds that suddenly become available when you remove the rule. The only thing it ever stifled was creativity. A few players with concepts they wanted to try out were discouraged from using those builds, that's all.

That was the point of my post. Minus the stifling creativity part.

ryu

2016-09-23, 08:17 PM

Now, now, it also encouraged players to play the already (arguably most) powerful race of humans.

Which might have been intended since they were trying to give a mechanical reason to play humans with race/class limits and racial level limits removed.

They just underestimated feat + skill ranks.

And severely overestimated the benefits of pretty much every other core race that wasn't elves. And also overestimated just what a complete and utter rifle shot to the foot most LA races are.

Aetis

2016-09-23, 08:18 PM

Well, I guess it does steer people away from playing Grey Elf Fighter 1/Warblade 1/Crusader 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Sorcerer 3.

Is that a bad thing?

ryu

2016-09-23, 08:20 PM

Well, I guess it does steer people away from playing Grey Elf Fighter 1/Warblade 1/Crusader 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Sorcerer 3.

Is that a bad thing?

That build is already horribly gimped for lack of a real focus. Don't make it even worse. Also initiator levels at the END. They're better that way.

Thurbane

2016-09-23, 08:21 PM

I was also curious about that, so I went and told my players that the XP penalty rule was removed.

Their reaction was mostly "meh". One guy didn't know that such rule even existed.

It was kinda funny.

We are gonna go ahead and try to come up with builds that take advantage of the this, but I doubt that this rule was somehow power-limiting.

That's very much the attitude in my game(s). No one has ever really wanted a particular concept that would have been significantly affected by having the default rules in place.

I sometimes find it funny that some of the very same people who are sticklers for 100% RAW, even when it is patently absurd or not RAI (such as monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes, drown-healing, 1d43 scorpion whips etc.) are completely OK with waiving XP penalty rules as "bad-wrong-fun". :smalltongue:

BowStreetRunner

2016-09-23, 08:27 PM

That build is already horribly gimped for lack of a real focus. Don't make it even worse. Also initiator levels at the END. They're better that way.

It's a build that is so powerful the developers felt it had to be balanced with a 100% XP Penalty!

Serioulsy, it's better than CW Samurai 8. :smalltongue:

ryu

2016-09-23, 08:56 PM

It's a build that is so powerful the developers felt it had to be balanced with a 100% XP Penalty!

Serioulsy, it's better than CW Samurai 8. :smalltongue:

Don't make your players play something that you feel tempted to compare to CW samurai in the same breath. That's like kicking a puppy. A lost, starving, ownerless puppy.... with a cold.

tyruth

2016-09-24, 08:06 AM

For the general sake of ease of play and since most of my players are all fairly new to D&D and not comfortable with much of the rules I usually scrap the idea of xp in general and we just level up at the end of certain parts of the story. In my group this is mostly an ease of play thing, but I feel it also gives a better reward for completing the story than shiny new items and builds character attachment more. XP doesn't become this number that they need to get in order to progress and it's one less barrier to enjoyment.

Sandsarecool

2016-09-24, 03:04 PM

XP Penalties are an overall hindrance to newbie players and DMs.
Different PCs gaining different rates of XP require more maths, time, and bookkeeping. The rule also prevents newbie players making the character of their dreams because it would seem to weaken their character, and nobody wants that. Once characters split levels (yeah, that happens anyways, but it's a pain if you don't know what to do), the DM has to throw in more effort to keep players happy. Newbie players start feeling overshadowed my their non-XP penalty counterparts. The first table I played at enforced it, but never did look at my character sheet closely enough to realise it was in violation of that rule.
At low levels, it's generally not too much of a hindrance, but it is still effort.

Twurps

2016-09-25, 08:54 AM

.......
I sometimes find it funny that some of the very same people who are sticklers for 100% RAW, even when it is patently absurd or not RAI (such as monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes, drown-healing, 1d43 scorpion whips etc.) are completely OK with waiving XP penalty rules as "bad-wrong-fun". :smalltongue:

This has always baffled me on this forum. It's 100% RAW! no way can you deviate from it or you're a BAD dm!

As for my games: I wouldn't know. It just never comes up.
It's not on the list of houserules/bans we agreed to at character creation, so that would mean they apply. More likely nobody thought to mention them as we automatically assume the rule is not enforced.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-25, 08:59 AM

I do. I like them.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-25, 09:01 AM

This has always baffled me on this forum. It's 100% RAW! no way can you deviate from it or you're a BAD dm!It's more that A.) people have very dumb houserules which make the game frustrating and un-fun (see: nerfing monks and beefing up wizards because they look at the PHB class charts and are convinced the classes' power levels are the absolute opposite of what they really are), B.) people are convinced that their houserules are RAW and won't accept anything else, including actual quoted RAW, and C.) people don't seem to realize that when discussing actual RAW, you can't bring houserules or Rule 0 into the mix, because by that point it's not actually RAW.

This doesn't apply to everyone, just to those it...uh...applies to.

rrwoods

2016-09-25, 09:54 AM

This has always baffled me on this forum. It's 100% RAW! no way can you deviate from it or you're a BAD dm!
No one actually thinks that, and what baffles *me* on this forum is people that think people are arguing for 100% RAW.

What people get into arguments over is what RAW says. Sometimes people get into arguments over whether to enforce a particular rule (like in this thread). But most of the time discussions that lead to "that's a houserule, just so you know" don't make any value judgments about such a houserule. I dunno, maybe people get insulted when they hear "houserule" or something, maybe they hear "how dare you change this game it's perfect".

But to me discussions about what RAW says are very useful. As a player I prefer knowing that my abilities do what they say they do, and interact with the game in a way that is consistent with the rules. As a DM I prefer the same for my players. So if there's a change, as a player I prefer to know that it is in effect, and as a DM I prefer the same for my players. Therefore RAW is a fallback, and any rule we (as a table! together!) think is silly we discuss and change, explicitly.

To circle back to what was said: What I think people mean when they get uppity about deviating from RAW is not that you're bad if you do it, but rather that if you're pulling the rug out from under your players in the middle of a game, you're likely to be unexpectedly ruining someone's fun.

Red Fel

2016-09-25, 11:33 AM

No one actually thinks that, and what baffles *me* on this forum is people that think people are arguing for 100% RAW.

What people get into arguments over is what RAW says. Sometimes people get into arguments over whether to enforce a particular rule (like in this thread). But most of the time discussions that lead to "that's a houserule, just so you know" don't make any value judgments about such a houserule. I dunno, maybe people get insulted when they hear "houserule" or something, maybe they hear "how dare you change this game it's perfect".

To expand on this, very few people that I've seen argue in favor of applying 100% RAW 100% of the time. Rather, the RAW discussions I've seen include:
As RR says, what the RAW actually says and means.
Using RAW as a baseline, given that that's the only common language we have. As RR notes, a lot of people use different house rules. In fact, I've seen a lot of proponents of RAW nonetheless encourage certain house rules (such as abolishing multiclass penalties or allowing Monks unarmed proficiency) simply because they're good rules. However, house rules aren't universal; RAW is, so that's where we have to start.
The point is that these discussions don't tend to conclude, "And therefore you must do only what RAW says." Rather, they tend to say, "This is what the RAW says. Where to now?"

To circle back to what was said: What I think people mean when they get uppity about deviating from RAW is not that you're bad if you do it, but rather that if you're pulling the rug out from under your players in the middle of a game, you're likely to be unexpectedly ruining someone's fun.

This. The Rule of Fun generally trumps - even when we disagree with a house rule or particular DMing strategy, the first question many posters will ask is, "But do the players enjoy it?" And if the answer is yes, the discussion is pretty much finished; notwithstanding any advice we might offer on how to change it, what's important is that everyone is having a good time.

The key thing about rules interpretations is that they be applied consistently. That's why so many discussions orbit around RAW - it is, as I mentioned, the language we share. If and where you deviate from RAW, it is imperative that (1) your players know of it in advance, in order to share and understand your expectation of the game, and (2) you apply those deviations consistently, in order that players don't feel ambushed or tricked.

For example, if you are operating in a homebrew setting where arcane magic has an arbitrary chance of failure, that's a house rule you need to run by your players first. If you then suspend that rule, for whatever reason, you need to be able to explain it, lest you hurt gameplay with the inconsistent rule application. Does that mean that this non-RAW rule is a bad one? Not necessarily; it must simply be applied with care and consistency. By the same token, if you set aside a piece of RAW - such as the multiclass penalty - it's important to clear that with the players in advance, so that they know, and to keep your deviation consistently applied throughout the game (so no suddenly penalizing the triple-9 caster for becoming OP).

Recherché

2016-09-25, 11:36 AM

I do. I like them.

May I ask what you feel multiclass penalties add to the game? How do you feel they make things more fun? Or more realistic? Just want to understand.

Âmesang

2016-09-25, 11:45 AM

I'll admit I try to stick to RAW as much as I can… but that's mostly because I'm lazy, and it's easy for me to keep track of rules that are printed out right there in front of me instead of trying to remember this detail or that.

Granted, I do have ideas for some house rules/"corrections" (such as allowing monks to be proficient with the ward cestus and treat it as a special monk weapon, or giving white and black slaadi DR 15/epic and lawful and DR 20/epic and lawful, respectfully), but first I'll have to remind myself to write 'em all down first. :smallsmile: Then I can convert 'em to a .pdf so as to send copies to my players.

…although I think another reason is 'cause I've seen some players try to use "Rule of Cool" to such a degree that they feel their character should never fail (because apparently having to stand within 30 ft. to perform a ranged sneak attack is unreasonable; nevermind the old adage "don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes").

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-25, 12:17 PM

May I ask what you feel multiclass penalties add to the game? How do you feel they make things more fun? Or more realistic? Just want to understand.

Of course, nice of you to ask. My message was very poor because I'm feeling stressed.

1. Multiclass penalties make humans stronger. As a DM, I want to most of the PCs to be human, but I'm not willing to force any arms directly (That wouldn't work), so I take any rule that makes humans better in comparison to other races. Almost any rule or guideline will do, I'm going to take it without thinking twice.

2. PCs should be relatively specialized. I like fighters, clerics and rogues, but a fighter/cleric/rogue would make me frown. It just wouldn't feel right to me. That kind of combination... Nah, that wouldn't be like it's in the books, movies and stories... Multiclass penalties make multiclassing a bit more difficult, hence the name.

3. I want to show my players that we are playing by the book and this is not some game where I'm the dictator and all are subject to my whims. No, this is D&D 3.5 and we have these rules and before the rules all are equal.

4. I like legacy things and there's a certain sense of legacy in the MCP rules. To be honest, I think that legacy "items" usually cause lots of problems in D&D, like if you had something silly and counter-intuitive in the 70s then you have to have it now too, since Legacies Matter. I'm a sentimental guy. But I'm not stupid. So I'm torn... Are legacies good or bad? Ai caramba...

Necroticplague

2016-09-25, 12:47 PM

Of course, nice of you to ask. My message was very poor because I'm feeling stressed.

1. Multiclass penalties make humans stronger. As a DM, I want to most of the PCs to be human, but I'm not willing to force any arms directly (That wouldn't work), so I take any rule that makes humans better in comparison to other races. Almost any rule or guideline will do, I'm going to take it without thinking twice.
And the LA rules don't do a good enough job on their own?

2. PCs should be relatively specialized. I like fighters, clerics and rogues, but a fighter/cleric/rogue would make me frown. It just wouldn't feel right to me. That kind of combination... Nah, that wouldn't be like it's in the books, movies and stories... Multiclass penalties make multiclassing a bit more difficult, hence the name.

You mean, like Elmininster, the wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric/archmage/epic wizard, who had an entire series of his own books?

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 12:53 PM

I do. I like them.

You will be picked on and bullied for this opinion. You already have been. You shouldn't feel obligated to inform people why you play the game the way you do. I like that you did though.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-25, 12:58 PM

You will be picked on and bullied for this opinion. You already have been.Citation needed.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-25, 01:00 PM

And the LA rules don't do a good enough job on their own?

You mean, like Elmininster, the wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric/archmage/epic wizard, who had an entire series of his own books?

LA rules, well... Those ones are pretty brutal, I have to admit, but multiclass penalties are mostly about the standard races whereas the LA rules aren't. The complement each other.

To be honest, I've never been a fan of Forgotten Realms. I like the setting and all, but it has never been my cup of tea. If I were, though, and I had read about characters like Elminster, I might think differently. But you have a point there, certainly.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 01:06 PM

Citation needed.

Bullied is prolly too strong. Picked on isn't. I can't cite a source because if I say this is picking on him, I will be correct. If you say that, that is not picking on him, you will be correct. These things are subjective. No proof is needed. No source citation is possible here.

Recherché

2016-09-25, 01:07 PM

Erit

2016-09-25, 01:12 PM

From this and a few other things you've said on the sight it sounds to me like you want a very old school 1970's/1980's style of D&D. One where death is common, penalties harsh and PCs are not unique special snowflakes. Which if it works for you then all is well. Not really my style though nor the style of most of the rest of the boards.

Some people are special snowflakes in their day-to-day lives, and so go to the tabletop to be a nobody for a little while.

Some people are nobodies in their day-to-day lives, and so go to the tabletop to be a special snowflake for a little while.

The third category, in my opinion, does not warrant further mentioning.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-25, 01:14 PM

From this and a few other things you've said on the sight it sounds to me like you want a very old school 1970's/1980's style of D&D. One where death is common, penalties harsh and PCs are not unique special snowflakes. Which if it works for you then all is well. Not really my style though nor the style of most of the rest of the boards.

Pretty much this, but "unique special snowflakes" is debatable. In my game, all characters above level 4 are very expectional individuals and 99% of the people of any kingdom should tread carefully with them. But other than that, yeah, you nailed it. Thank you for respecting my gaming style.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 01:33 PM

2. PCs should be relatively specialized. I like fighters, clerics and rogues, but a fighter/cleric/rogue would make me frown. It just wouldn't feel right to me. That kind of combination... Nah, that wouldn't be like it's in the books, movies and stories... Multiclass penalties make multiclassing a bit more difficult, hence the name.

I think this is the real point of contention regarding your opinion. That being, a fighter/cleric/rogue already sucks so badly. It's a thoroughly awful build, and the things you could do to make it passable, ditching rogue, cutting fighter and cleric to dips, maybe adding a couple of swordsage levels to emulate those rogue elements a little, will get you away from the penalties entirely. You're basically telling the builds in this game that suck the most that they should also advance slower than their stronger brethren. And it's not a thing unique to your example either. If your build would run afoul of the multiclass penalty rules, then it probably isn't very good in the first place. In this sense, multiclass penalties will do one of three things to your theoretical fighter/cleric/rogue. They could leave that design behind, which seems according to your intent, they could multiclass smarter, having the same amount of combination use with more effectiveness, or they could use the same awful build, and be even more awful. I dunno. Maybe you see the first thing as worth the other two things, but the first seems so of dubious value to me compared to the obvious impact of the other two.

So, I guess my point is, to whatever extent the multiclassing rules promote this particular form of play that you like, they happen to be really really bad at it, with a bunch of negative externalities that you wouldn't necessarily need to have out of a multiclassing rule. Though, unless you get rid of the free prestige classing thing, the part where tier one casters get the better end of this bargain stays the same no matter how you do it.

weckar

2016-09-25, 01:42 PM

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-25, 01:57 PM

I think this is the real point of contention regarding your opinion. That being, a fighter/cleric/rogue already sucks so badly. It's a thoroughly awful build, and the things you could do to make it passable, ditching rogue, cutting fighter and cleric to dips, maybe adding a couple of swordsage levels to emulate those rogue elements a little, will get you away from the penalties entirely. You're basically telling the builds in this game that suck the most that they should also advance slower than their stronger brethren. And it's not a thing unique to your example either. If your build would run afoul of the multiclass penalty rules, then it probably isn't very good in the first place. In this sense, multiclass penalties will do one of three things to your theoretical fighter/cleric/rogue. They could leave that design behind, which seems according to your intent, they could multiclass smarter, having the same amount of combination use with more effectiveness, or they could use the same awful build, and be even more awful. I dunno. Maybe you see the first thing as worth the other two things, but the first seems so of dubious value to me compared to the obvious impact of the other two.

So, I guess my point is, to whatever extent the multiclassing rules promote this particular form of play that you like, they happen to be really really bad at it, with a bunch of negative externalities that you wouldn't necessarily need to have out of a multiclassing rule. Though, unless you get rid of the free prestige classing thing, the part where tier one casters get the better end of this bargain stays the same no matter how you do it.

You have to excuse me if I understood you wrong, but this whole "what build is awful and what is not" is sort of irrelevant to me (but not entirely) since if someone wants to create a really powerful character, there's always wizard and druid. Having strong builds or bad builds is not the case. I just don't want to see any circus freak characters. But the irony is that one of my current players still managed to create the worst circus freak that you can imagine and it receives no multiclass penalty. It's sort of funny, and sort of... not at all.

Zaydos

2016-09-25, 02:05 PM

That's the thing the multiclass penalty encourages worse circus freak characters (through dips) than it deters (Fighter 4/Rogue 1). I mean Fighter 4/Rogue 1 what? A fighter who has picked up a bit of stealth and learned to flank better. What the multiclass penalty forces is Fighter 2/Barbarian 2 (or Ranger 2)/Rogue 1 which is more 'circus freak'. It actually encourages dips and circus freaks... and playing humans (which I've never found to be that uncommon even in low level AD&D where there was no mechanical reason to do it, much less in 3.0 where human is the easy optimization choice if you stick to PHB races).

Also note that Fighter/Cleric/Thief was a valid multiclass combination in 2e for Half-Elves. And the multiclass rules are a weird legacy in that they are using 2e design logic to do the opposite of what the rules in 2e supported (multiclassing was a non-human thing, now it's a human thing). Which manages to bother the part of me that likes legacy rules and the part of me that hates them at the same time.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 02:05 PM

You have to excuse me if I understood you wrong, but this whole "what build is awful and what is not" is sort of irrelevant to me (but not entirely) since if someone wants to create a really powerful character, there's always wizard and druid. Having strong builds or bad builds is not the case. I just don't want to see any circus freak characters. But the irony is that one of my current players still managed to create the worst circus freak that you can imagine and it receives no multiclass penalty. It's sort of funny, and sort of... not at all.
Your point is based on power though. You're saying you want to disincentivize multiclassing by reducing the power of those builds. I'm saying that any build that'd actually get hit has crazy power disincentives already. You're not talking about some roleplay disincentive here. If we're talking about a power based way to get people not to do certain things, then we must talk about all the power based ways that already exist to not get people to do those things. Because those ways very much exist.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-25, 02:07 PM

After some thinking, from a philosophical perspective I agree with Jon_Dahl. Except on the humans thing.

I never thought of MCP in that way though. Thanks for the enlightenment. I may give enforcing it a swing in my next game.I think you'd be better off pulling Pathfinder's way of doing things into your game, instead. Instead of weird penalties that don't do what they're supposed to do (and, in fact, make everything worse), why not grant extra benefits any time someone takes a level in their favored class? That does exactly what multiclassing penalties set out to do, but it actually succeeds, rather than failing abominably.

Afgncaap5

2016-09-25, 04:10 PM

I enforce it in theory. I've never had players multiclass enough for it to come up, though.

I do, however, have a rule that Half-Elves can have two favored classes instead of one, like in Pathfinder. This doesn't give bonus skill points or hit points as it does in Pathfinder, but it's a technical house rule I use. It's similarly never come up, though; even my half-elf players who multiclass have never multiclassed enough to take advantage of the fact that they can.

I totally get why people don't want to enforce multiclass penalties, though. It's a kind of friction in the generally smooth calculations of character design and can make a person slow down and not be up to speed with the rest of the party for starters. If I ran different kinds of games and also had players more interested in multiclassing, I'd consider dropping it.

Zanos

2016-09-25, 04:57 PM

I totally get why people don't want to enforce multiclass penalties, though. It's a kind of friction in the generally smooth calculations of character design and can make a person slow down and not be up to speed with the rest of the party for starters.
I won't speak for other posters, but I personally don't like it because the designers imposed out as a way to limit multiclassing, which they thought would make a character more powerful than their peers. This usually is not the case, so I don't see a reason to penalize people for taking weird class spreads.

Psyren

2016-09-25, 06:58 PM

I won't speak for other posters, but I personally don't like it because the designers imposed out as a way to limit multiclassing, which they thought would make a character more powerful than their peers. This usually is not the case, so I don't see a reason to penalize people for taking weird class spreads.

The solution they should have used is to encourage single-classing rather than penalize multi-classing; carrot, not stick. Pathfinder took this approach, and it keeps a single-classed build on par with (if not superior to) one that is dipping left and right.

Zanos

2016-09-25, 07:07 PM

The solution they should have used is to encourage single-classing rather than penalize multi-classing; carrot, not stick. Pathfinder took this approach, and it keeps a single-classed build on par with (if not superior to) one that is dipping left and right.
I don't think the additional carrot was necessary. In 3.5, single classed characters or single class into PrC are usually the best options, outside of corner cases and core only games.

ryu

2016-09-25, 07:22 PM

I don't think the additional carrot was necessary. In 3.5, single classed characters or single class into PrC are usually the best options, outside of corner cases and core only games.

No no. Pretty much the only times multiclassing is good general purpose advise is martial mundanes what with being epically front loaded. Don't get me wrong. Still demonstrably inferior to a single classed caster, but I think we all know which is better between fighter 20 and a bunch of martial 2s stacked on top of each other.

Zanos

2016-09-25, 07:25 PM

No no. Pretty much the only times multiclassing is good general purpose advise is martial mundanes what with being epically front loaded. Don't get me wrong. Still demonstrably inferior to a single classed caster, but I think we all know which is better between fighter 20 and a bunch of martial 2s stacked on top of each other.
Warblade 20 is better than both. I did mention core only as an exception. :smalltongue:

ryu

2016-09-25, 07:31 PM

Warblade 20 is better than both. I did mention core only as an exception. :smalltongue:

No. I covered that. Warblade 20 IS a single-classed caster. It's a tier 3 caster granted, but it's still a caster.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-25, 07:34 PM

No. I covered that. Warblade 20 IS a single-classed caster. It's a tier 3 caster granted, but it's still a caster.A caster with no spells, mostly (Ex) abilities, a few (Su) abilities, and a stick or fist to hit things with. Y'know, like a nonmagical martial character, like a T3 version of the monk.

Huh. I didn't know monks were casters.

Zanos

2016-09-25, 07:39 PM

A caster with no spells, mostly (Ex) abilities, a few (Su) abilities, and a stick or fist to hit things with. Y'know, like a nonmagical martial character, like a T3 version of the monk.

Huh. I didn't know monks were casters.
I highly recommend stepping away slowly, and pretending it never happened.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KuuktJh6c8I/T7yUjp9e_aI/AAAAAAAABOY/sLHmTr9Mwdc/s1600/misfits.gif

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 07:45 PM

A caster with no spells, mostly (Ex) abilities, a few (Su) abilities, and a stick or fist to hit things with. Y'know, like a nonmagical martial character, like a T3 version of the monk.

Huh. I didn't know monks were casters.

Caster or not, anything with a (Su) ability is not mundane.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 07:46 PM

Caster or not, anything with a SU ability is not mundane.
Do warblades even have Su? I thought that was just a swordsage and crusader thing.

ryu

2016-09-25, 07:48 PM

A caster with no spells, mostly (Ex) abilities, a few (Su) abilities, and a stick or fist to hit things with. Y'know, like a nonmagical martial character, like a T3 version of the monk.

Huh. I didn't know monks were casters.

The entirety of its relevant class features are spells, same as psions have spells. This is not to say this a bad thing. I prefer spellcasters. Lets call a spade a spade here.

Zaydos

2016-09-25, 07:50 PM

Caster or not, anything with a (Su) ability is not mundane.

So monks are not mundane (Su and Sp abilities), but warblades may or may not be since...

Do warblades even have Su? I thought that was just a swordsage and crusader thing.

No they don't. Warblade is all Ex.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-09-25, 07:50 PM

The entirety of its relevant class features are spells, same as psions have spells. This is not to say this a bad thing. I prefer spellcasters. Lets call a spade a spade here.Citation needed.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 07:59 PM

Do warblades even have Su? I thought that was just a swordsage and crusader thing.

I'm not sure. It doesn't really matter. Su are magical and not mundane. It doesn't matter whether a warblah, or swordblah gets them. They are magical in nature.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 08:02 PM

I'm not sure. It doesn't really matter. Su are magical and not mundane. It doesn't matter whether a warblah, or swordblah gets them. They are magical in nature.
The point is that warblades aren't magic. Because they're not. And, y'know, if that's your standard for a class being mundane, then there aren't all that many mundane classes.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 08:04 PM

The point is that warblades aren't magic. Because they're not. And, y'know, if that's your standard for a class being mundane, then there aren't all that many mundane classes.
Then what exactly defines a mundane class?

Edit: To be clear, I love ToB. But don't tell me Su abilities are mundane. Or maybe define how the difference between those with Su abilities that are mundane differ from those with Su that are not mundane. Whether a warblah specifically has access to the Su abilities is irrelevant to whether they are mundane or not.

ryu

2016-09-25, 08:08 PM

Do warblades even have Su? I thought that was just a swordsage and crusader thing.

And who cares if they get Su? Spellcasting isn't a matter of tags. It's a matter of what you're doing. If you have spell levels for specifically labeled spells, that can be triggered as magic items, and even list off dozens of such available at any given time, you're a spellcaster. This is true whether your necessary equipment is a weapon, a wand, some bat poop, some talisman, a little herb, your own mind, or even singing or interpretive dance in the case of bards.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 08:10 PM

Then what exactly defines a mundane class?
It's somewhat murky. I suppose a lot of it depends on what the class focuses upon. A lot of these classes have some magical elements, but their main shtick is hitting stuff in a relatively mundane way. Just like a cleric can hit people in a totally non-magical way, but they tend to rely on magic.

Edit:
And who cares if they get Su? Spellcasting isn't a matter of tags. It's a matter of what you're doing. If you have spell levels for specifically labeled spells, that can be triggered as magic items, and even list off dozens of such available at any given time, you're a spellcaster. This is true whether your necessary equipment is a weapon, a wand, some bat poop, some talisman, a little herb, your own mind, or even singing or interpretive dance in the case of bards.
I agree that it's not all about labels, but I think there's something to casting that goes beyond doing stuff off of a tiered list with a limiting factor on uses. It's about what you're actually doing, having an impact on reality that goes beyond yourself. Yes, these ToB classes have some elements of that, but I think a true caster is far more focused on it. It's about altering reality around you. Not just because doing so is powerful, but just because that's their deal. If you're simply hitting things in really creative and interesting ways, then I dunno that you qualify.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 08:13 PM

ryu

2016-09-25, 08:26 PM

It's somewhat murky. I suppose a lot of it depends on what the class focuses upon. A lot of these classes have some magical elements, but their main shtick is hitting stuff in a relatively mundane way. Just like a cleric can hit people in a totally non-magical way, but they tend to rely on magic.

Edit:
I agree that it's not all about labels, but I think there's something to casting that goes beyond doing stuff off of a tiered list with a limiting factor on uses. It's about what you're actually doing, having an impact on reality that goes beyond yourself. Yes, these ToB classes have some elements of that, but I think a true caster is far more focused on it. It's about altering reality around you. Not just because doing so is powerful, but just because that's their deal. If you're simply hitting things in really creative and interesting ways, then I dunno that you qualify.

Except casters that don't effect reality all that much exist and are still casters. They're just less powerful casters. Hell we all can name a dozen different ways of making a viable caster who uses his spells entirely for the purpose of wading into combat. We can also do this across pretty much every acknowledged caster class. The fact that warblades didn't branch out as much doesn't make them not casters.

Further it's true there aren't many non-casters in this game. Depending on your point of view the few that do exist are either there to facilitate low power play, or were a mistake that WotC decided not to repeat on the grounds that class features that actually do things tend to be some form of magic in this system.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 08:32 PM

Except casters that don't effect reality all that much exist and are still casters. They're just less powerful casters. Hell we all can name a dozen different ways of making a viable caster who uses his spells entirely for the purpose of wading into combat. We can also do this across pretty much every acknowledged caster class. The fact that warblades didn't branch out as much doesn't make them not casters.
Even a healer has some pretty reality bending capabilities by reality's standards. Sure, a character can pick the less exciting spells, but those spells are still going to be somewhat reality warping, with size growth and bestowed magical bonuses and whatnot. Consider it this way. A crusader pushing their magical nature as much as possible will probably act a bit less casterly than a cleric acting as unmagical as possible. Any push at all moves the two pretty far apart.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 08:37 PM

Except casters that don't effect reality all that much exist and are still casters. They're just less powerful casters. Hell we all can name a dozen different ways of making a viable caster who uses his spells entirely for the purpose of wading into combat. We can also do this across pretty much every acknowledged caster class. The fact that warblades didn't branch out as much doesn't make them not casters.

Further it's true there aren't many non-casters in this game. Depending on your point of view the few that do exist are either there to facilitate low power play, or were a mistake that WotC decided not to repeat on the grounds that class features that actually do things tend to be some form of magic in this system.

I don't think it's fair to call any ToB class a caster. They certainly are not that. It's not unfair to call them non-mundane though. Those that use any Sp or Su certainly are not mundane. That's how I define mundane. Others may have a different definition. I've never seen or heard of a single definition of mundane that has been agreed upon.

ryu

2016-09-25, 08:55 PM

Even a healer has some pretty reality bending capabilities by reality's standards. Sure, a character can pick the less exciting spells, but those spells are still going to be somewhat reality warping, with size growth and bestowed magical bonuses and whatnot. Consider it this way. A crusader pushing their magical nature as much as possible will probably act a bit less casterly than a cleric acting as unmagical as possible. Any push at all moves the two pretty far apart.

Except you can warp reality HARD with maneuvers. You can turn off the sun, manipulate the turn order to give allies more actions, heal people, change the properties of your weapon, rebuke anything with a will save, and all manner of other ridiculous things. Now not all of that is natively a part of the warblade's spell list. This is not the same as being unattainable.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 09:39 PM

eggynack

2016-09-25, 09:46 PM

Except you can warp reality HARD with maneuvers. You can turn off the sun, manipulate the turn order to give allies more actions, heal people, change the properties of your weapon, rebuke anything with a will save, and all manner of other ridiculous things. Now not all of that is natively a part of the warblade's spell list. This is not the same as being unattainable.
Granted, they have a few out there abilities. But there's only a few of them, a good number of the ones after the crazy turn manipulation stuff, and then a lot of versatile stabbing. I dunno that I'd consider wizards casters if they could only cast celerity and dispel whatever. Even an adept has more wacky stuff than a warblade, and that's natively.

You get everything but turning off the sun. That can't be done. Please be serious when posting. ;)
Nah, that's totally doable.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 09:50 PM

Granted, they have a few out there abilities. But there's only a few of them, a good number of the ones after the crazy turn manipulation stuff, and then a lot of versatile stabbing. I dunno that I'd consider wizards casters if they could only cast celerity and dispel whatever. Even an adept has more wacky stuff than a warblade, and that's natively.

Nah, that's totally doable.

Is the sun an effect? Ask in the RAW thread what a effect is. I did. It wasn't really answered because there is no answer. So no, it doesn't cancel the sun. Nope. Not at all.

eggynack

2016-09-25, 10:05 PM

Is the sun an effect? Ask in the RAW thread what a effect is. I did. It wasn't really answered because there is no answer. So no, it doesn't cancel the sun. Nope. Not at all.
I've been in way longer arguments about this than whatever RAW thread thing you got up to. Check out this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362476-So-I-ve-made-the-ultimate-Anti-Mage). It evolved into a pretty intense IHS thread at some point, and then continued on into this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363625-The-new-and-slightly-improved-iron-heart-surge-thread). I think I came out of that one in a pretty solid position. Also, it's not generally effect but rather condition that is pointed to as the thing being removed.

bekeleven

2016-09-25, 10:11 PM

You have to excuse me if I understood you wrong, but this whole "what build is awful and what is not" is sort of irrelevant to me (but not entirely) since if someone wants to create a really powerful character, there's always wizard and druid. Having strong builds or bad builds is not the case. I just don't want to see any circus freak characters. But the irony is that one of my current players still managed to create the worst circus freak that you can imagine and it receives no multiclass penalty. It's sort of funny, and sort of... not at all.You've stumbled upon the reason I and many others on this boards don't like the rule:

It doesn't punish optimized play, only players that need help keeping up.
It doesn't punish spellcasters, only classes that need help keeping up.
Finally, it doesn't punish odd characters (as classes are a metagame concept), it punishes players trying to mechanically express themselves.

Basically it seems like a case of good intentions running up against bad implications.

Morcleon

2016-09-25, 10:15 PM

Some people are special snowflakes in their day-to-day lives, and so go to the tabletop to be a nobody for a little while.

Some people are nobodies in their day-to-day lives, and so go to the tabletop to be a special snowflake for a little while.

The third category, in my opinion, does not warrant further mentioning.

What about the people who are special snowflakes IRL and want to continue being special snowflakes at the tabletop? :smalltongue:

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 10:23 PM

I've been in way longer arguments about this than whatever RAW thread thing you got up to. Check out this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362476-So-I-ve-made-the-ultimate-Anti-Mage). It evolved into a pretty intense IHS thread at some point, and then continued on into this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363625-The-new-and-slightly-improved-iron-heart-surge-thread). I think I came out of that one in a pretty solid position. Also, it's not generally effect but rather condition that is pointed to as the thing being removed.

I have in fact read those threads. They do not necessarily sway me. Yes, you and others parse the terms to your own meanings. That's my opinion. You have yours. There is a case to be made that IHS surge, by RAW, can shut the DM down. I'm not interested in what is theoretically silly. I'm more concerned with how one would rule it in a game. The RAW is still not clear, or obvious. YMMV is all I can say on this point

Edit: Meh, sorry we are way off topic here.

Morcleon

2016-09-25, 10:28 PM

eggynack

2016-09-25, 10:34 PM

I have in fact read those threads. They do not necessarily sway me. Yes, you and others parse the terms to your own meanings. That's my opinion. You have yours. There is a case to be made that IHS surge, by RAW, can shut the DM down. I'm not interested in what is theoretically silly. I'm more concerned with how one would rule it in a game. The RAW is still not clear, or obvious. YMMV is all I can say on this point.
My arguments could hold or not, but I don't think that opinion or mileage enter into it. Either what I said was accurate or it wasn't. If there is a solid rebuttal using the rules of the game, then my argument as it stands does not hold, and if there isn't one then, as is, it does hold. But neither of our opinions matter. This is a discussion of what warblades are capable of within the rules, and whether that implies that they are casters. As far as I can tell, IHS abuse is within the rules.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 10:35 PM

How you would rule something in a game is no longer in RAW territory.
You are assuming the RAW are clear, they are not. I a challenge you to post this in the RAW Q&A thread and get a single answer.

Morcleon

2016-09-25, 10:43 PM

You are assuming the RAW are clear, they are not. I a challenge you to post this in the RAW Q&A thread and get a single answer.

RAW is not always clear. Sometimes, RAW can be, by RAW, ambiguous. This does not mean that making a ruling is RAW at all.

nyjastul69

2016-09-25, 10:44 PM

My arguments could hold or not, but I don't think that opinion or mileage enter into it. Either what I said was accurate or it wasn't. If there is a solid rebuttal using the rules of the game, then my argument as it stands does not hold, and if there isn't one then, as is, it does hold. But neither of our opinions matter. This is a discussion of what warblades are capable of within the rules, and whether that implies that they are casters. As far as I can tell, IHS abuse is within the rules.
The discussion isn't actually about Warblah'z at all. It should be about XP penalties. Imma stop now cuz my wayfinding says I'm lost.

ryu

2016-09-25, 11:16 PM

I have in fact read those threads. They do not necessarily sway me. Yes, you and others parse the terms to your own meanings. That's my opinion. You have yours. There is a case to be made that IHS surge, by RAW, can shut the DM down. I'm not interested in what is theoretically silly. I'm more concerned with how one would rule it in a game. The RAW is still not clear, or obvious. YMMV is all I can say on this point

Edit: Meh, sorry we are way off topic here.

You'd be surprised to learn that I have, in fact, played in games where the sun got turned off. This is what happens when vampire BBEGs get creative with magic items. You'd probably also be surprised to learn that that is FAR from the weirdest thing I've caused or seen in game. Never underestimate my ability to be perfectly fine with the weird.

Sun Elemental

2016-09-26, 01:03 AM

1. Multiclass penalties make humans stronger. As a DM, I want to most of the PCs to be human, but I'm not willing to force any arms directly (That wouldn't work), so I take any rule that makes humans better in comparison to other races. Almost any rule or guideline will do, I'm going to take it without thinking twice.

It seems that I absolutely, totally disagree with you.
1. Humans are the single most versatile class, and for any common build the 1st or 2nd most powerful class. Why help them mechanically if you're doing it for a roleplaying reason? Just tell your players to play humans. Make the entire world human-only. Make non-humans social outcasts in human cities. Unless you have an awesome reason, you're basically admitting that the rule is racist, and you're ok with that.

2. PCs should be relatively specialized. I like fighters, clerics and rogues, but a fighter/cleric/rogue would make me frown. It just wouldn't feel right to me. That kind of combination... Nah, that wouldn't be like it's in the books, movies and stories... Multiclass penalties make multiclassing a bit more difficult, hence the name.

2. It's hard to assume the builds of famous characters. Some are so versatile they have to be Factotums or multiclassed. And as others have said, you're letting a little discomfort block players from doing what they want.

3. I want to show my players that we are playing by the book and this is not some game where I'm the dictator and all are subject to my whims. No, this is D&D 3.5 and we have these rules and before the rules all are equal.

3. Dude, you can't just demonize DMs who implement house rules. You look like you're fetishizing the system of 3.5, which includes some very poorly implemented rules. Houserules are necessary for 3.5, unless you're happy with how grappling, Monks or Polymorph works.

eggynack

2016-09-26, 03:17 AM

The discussion isn't actually about Warblah'z at all. It should be about XP penalties. Imma stop now cuz my wayfinding says I'm lost.
Fair enough. I tend to view threads as being somewhat broad in scope, the topic useful to large extent insofar as it enables broader conversation.

However, there's one IHS argument that I don't think I made in that particular double-thread, because I came up with it in some later thread that I've since forgotten. And I'll restate it here, because it seems like a thing you seek an answer to. See, the general argument against IHS working on the sun is that you have this narrow condition definition set forth in core. However, far from context indicating that that's the condition definition being used, the maneuver text actually points in the exact opposite way. See, the spell doesn't say that it hits spells, effects, or conditions. It says it hits a spell, effect, or other condition. In other words, spells and effects are both conditions, according to IHS, so a narrow reading of the term "condition" doesn't work. After all, the conditions listed in the condition summary are not, in and of themselves, spells, and while some spells have effects that show up as conditions, not all spells are like that. Not even all spells that you'd be able to select with the spell clause. Overall, the indications are that some broader definition, such as the dictionary definition, must be the one used in the maneuver. That seems to disprove a lot of the claims against IHS working on crazy stuff, to my mind. Which is interesting. Also interesting is that I keep forgetting that I've made my IHS argument a lot stronger in the last couple of years.

Anyways, back on topic a bit, yeah, I agree that a lot of the other parts of the argument for multiclassing penalties are somewhat flawed. They're not usually the best choice, but they tend to act as something of a second best choice, and I don't know why they need to be buffed from there. And if they do want a buff for whatever reason, there're buffs that don't screw around with crappy characters. Though I've gotta say, there's a big difference between a house rule that improves enjoyment and playability in some fashion, like getting rid of this rule, and one needed for the basic functioning of the game, like making unambiguous what size of creature you can become with polymorph, or one that so obviously matches the game's intent, like giving monks unarmed strike proficiency. One can be fine with the latter house rule and not be fine with the former without losing self consistency of perspective.

Edit: Just finished re-reading that thread, and I totally did come up with the point I laid out here in it. Not sure what about what I was saying in that thread could be considered unconvincing then, given that. Seems like a rather straightforward proof first that there is no book definition for condition, and second that we must therefore rely on the dictionary definition. Granted, there's an annoying third step where removing the sun specifically must be shown to fit the dictionary definitions we have, but that doesn't seem all that difficult when all the steps leading up to that part are complete. It's only really hard when you have to prove all the other IHS stuff before you can even start up sun-talk.

Jay R

2016-09-26, 12:36 PM

It never crossed my mind to ask my DMs if they are using this rule. I just build characters within the rules automatically.

If their goal is to discourage multiclassing, they don't work.
If the goal is to make favored class important, they work ... oddly.

I have never followed that rule. It seems utterly pointless to me.

Never used them; the only thing it does is discourage multiclassing, ...

And that's just the point. The rule does nothing really purposeful for the game.

I won't speak for other posters, but I personally don't like it because the designers imposed out as a way to limit multiclassing, ...

The obvious purpose of Multiclass XP penalties is to get people to multi-class fairly consistently (as was required in AD&D), not jumping around here and there for purely mechanical benefit. It is NOT TRUE that the rule is pointless, or not purposeful, or intended to discourage or limit multiclassing. It has a point and a purpose: to discourage a particular type of multi-classing, while allowing other types.

You can say you don't like it, or that you don't approve of its purpose, but any comment that it has no purpose, or that it's to limit all multi-classing, is simple false.

Never, freedom to make a character of your choosing is the whole point of playing a fantasy game.

The problem with this argument is that it applies to every rule equally, and has no special application to the multi-class XP rule. It applies just as much to rules saying wizards can't cast in armor, or first level fighters can't have 30 ranks in Spot, or any other rule.

Nope. Never saw the point in reducing fun for people at the table.

It has never reduced my fun to build a character within the rules. That's what playing the game means.

icefractal

2016-09-26, 01:00 PM

Necroticplague

2016-09-26, 01:06 PM

The obvious purpose of Multiclass XP penalties is to get people to multi-class fairly consistently (as was required in AD&D), not jumping around here and there for purely mechanical benefit. It is NOT TRUE that the rule is pointless, or not purposeful, or intended to discourage or limit multiclassing. It has a point and a purpose: to discourage a particular type of multi-classing, while allowing other types.

You can say you don't like it, or that you don't approve of its purpose, but any comment that it has no purpose, or that it's to limit all multi-classing, is simple false.

In that case, we can bring up how miserably the rule fails at its intended purpose. If it's to discourage multi-classing all over the place, it should penalize a person who takes a new class every two levels, and it should penalize all dips. With the PRCs given an exception, and taking two levels in every base class being unpenalized, it seems safe to say it fails at its task in the same realm as the drowning rules, monk profeciencies, and starvation rules.

eggynack

2016-09-26, 01:08 PM

The obvious purpose of Multiclass XP penalties is to get people to multi-class fairly consistently (as was required in AD&D), not jumping around here and there for purely mechanical benefit. It is NOT TRUE that the rule is pointless, or not purposeful, or intended to discourage or limit multiclassing. It has a point and a purpose: to discourage a particular type of multi-classing, while allowing other types.

You can say you don't like it, or that you don't approve of its purpose, but any comment that it has no purpose, or that it's to limit all multi-classing, is simple false.

But it doesn't really stop wild jumping, is the problem, so if that's the only point then it is indeed pointless. The problem is that it doesn't actually stop the most efficient form of multiclassing, a series of rapid dips to capitalize on the front loaded nature of classes, followed by some PrC use, despite that type of multiclassing most capturing what you're trying to stop.

Consider that the OP came into this thread and talked about the crazy builds they saw, and then note what I said, that those builds likely don'the run afoul of this rule. Consider also your own experience, an insane build filled with dips that runs without penalty. Your experience was not outside the norm, as that's what smart multiclassing looks like, penalty or no. All of this indicates that the rule failed at its purpose, which means the thing doesn't have all that much purpose.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-26, 01:37 PM

It never crossed my mind to ask my DMs if they are using this rule. I just build characters within the rules automatically.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have just one simple question. I would be very happy if you could answer that for me, please:
Why can't you all do what Jay R does? Then we wouldn't even have to debate about these things... Well, we could, but it would be very theoretical.

eggynack

2016-09-26, 01:44 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, I have just one simple question. I would be very happy if you could answer that for me, please:
Why can't you all do what Jay R does? Then we wouldn't even have to debate about these things... Well, we could, but it would be very theoretical.
Again, I do build characters that are in line with these rules. It just has nothing to do with these rules. Who with optimization knowledge and the will to use it is running around with a fighter 4/rogue 2/cleric 6? The problem is players without that knowledge. This is a regressive rule, unnecessarily penalizing those that lack the optimization knowledge to render it meaningless.

ComaVision

2016-09-26, 01:48 PM

I'm genuinely curious about what build that incurs the multiclassing penalty is stronger than an alternative that doesn't.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-26, 01:51 PM

Again, I do build characters that are in line with these rules. It just has nothing to do with these rules. Who with optimization knowledge and the will to use it is running around with a fighter 4/rogue 2/cleric 6? The problem is players without that knowledge. This is a regressive rule, unnecessarily penalizing those that lack the optimization knowledge to render it meaningless.

I have to admit that you do have a point there, but it's still positive that we can have a rule that is abidable without too much drama.

Zaydos

2016-09-26, 01:53 PM

I've never actually personally built a character outside of these rules, but as a DM I've seen it penalize an already weak character, and in another case restrict a weak character concept to be... possibly actually stronger but still needlessly weak. Having grown up on the older editions I learned that as a DM it is my responsibility to note when a rule is harmful to the game.

Jay R

2016-09-26, 02:10 PM

It does, but that doesn't mean that purpose makes sense. I mean, from what perspective does it produce desirable results?

In that case, we can bring up how miserably the rule fails at its intended purpose.

But it doesn't really stop wild jumping, is the problem, ...

Thank you, all. We are now arguing the actual issue, which was my goal.

All of this indicates that the rule failed at its purpose, which means the thing doesn't have all that much purpose.

Not at all. There is a huge difference between failing at its purpose and not having one. The high school student who tries to get the cheerleader to date him and fails is not in the same situation as the one who doesn't particularly want to date her.

Recherché

2016-09-26, 02:32 PM

I have to admit that you do have a point there, but it's still positive that we can have a rule that is abidable without too much drama.

I really do not understand what you mean. Would you mind rephrase give that and/or expanding it?

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-26, 02:40 PM

I really do not understand what you mean. Would you mind rephrase give that and/or expanding it?

Rephrase: The rules about multiclassing and penalties thereof are ok and we can all live with them.
Expansion: The rules about multiclassing and penalties thereof are ok because we don't have to break those rules. A rule that we can easily follow is a rule that works, generally speaking.

eggynack

2016-09-26, 02:44 PM

I have to admit that you do have a point there, but it's still positive that we can have a rule that is abidable without too much drama.
I guess. I gotta think some newer folk get associated drama though, and that sucks. It's a rule that seems to do nothing but that, really.

Not at all. There is a huge difference between failing at its purpose and not having one. The high school student who tries to get the cheerleader to date him and fails is not in the same situation as the one who doesn't particularly want to date her.
The designers had a purpose putting it in. They failed at meeting that purpose. Thus, a DM cannot have that as their purpose when keeping it in. It is this latter purpose that is important, and it is that latter purpose that is missing. Why should I care about what people wanted of the rules when it is the actual rules that we are playing with.

Afgncaap5

2016-09-26, 02:51 PM

Having grown up on the older editions I learned that as a DM it is my responsibility to note when a rule is harmful to the game.

I think that's one of the most crucial factors, honestly. There's a really fine line between "Keeping adventurers hungry to motivate them" and "Penalizing someone so that it's a chore to play and not fun for anyone," and if things are entering into that second part then the rules should be different, for that game table if nothing else.

Morcleon

2016-09-26, 02:52 PM

Rephrase: The rules about multiclassing and penalties thereof are ok and we can all live with them.
Expansion: The rules about multiclassing and penalties thereof are ok because we don't have to break those rules. A rule that we can easily follow is a rule that works, generally speaking.

While the rules are easy to follow, it doesn't seem like a useful restriction to have in the game due to the fact that builds punished by this rule tend to already be weaker than those that are not.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-26, 02:55 PM

While the rules are easy to follow, it doesn't seem like a useful restriction to have in the game due to the fact that builds punished by this rule tend to already be weaker than those that are not.

But my question still stands.

Morcleon

2016-09-26, 02:58 PM

Recherché

2016-09-26, 04:18 PM

Zanos

2016-09-26, 04:37 PM

Sandsarecool

2016-09-26, 05:04 PM

This rule + 'theurge feats' (Ascetic X/Daring X/Devoted X) makes me :smallfrown:.
Especially when I'm working on a concept that isn't a human, or doesn't have either of those two classes as a favoured one.

Zaydos

2016-09-26, 05:17 PM

This sounds weirdly like a Law vs Chaos alignment argument. On one side we have people saying that "The law may be flawed but it's not doing too much damage and it does some good so we should follow it because it's the rules." Meanwhile are the other side is going with "The law is badly flawed and causes some harm. Yes it might do some good but that doesn't justify slavish obedience. If the rule is causing problems we should ignore it."

In this case the Chaos side is more "The law is badly flawed, and at best causes some harm. It does no good, and what good it might do simply ends up making an already bordering dominant option (humans) more powerful which does even more harm."

The only thing listed thus far as a plus in its side other than 'well it's an official rule' is 'it makes humans more powerful and I don't want non-humans' which is generally not considered a plus.

Also I'm supposed to be Lawful being on the Chaos side is :smallfrown:

ryu

2016-09-26, 06:13 PM

In this case the Chaos side is more "The law is badly flawed, and at best causes some harm. It does no good, and what good it might do simply ends up making an already bordering dominant option (humans) more powerful which does even more harm."

The only thing listed thus far as a plus in its side other than 'well it's an official rule' is 'it makes humans more powerful and I don't want non-humans' which is generally not considered a plus.

Also I'm supposed to be Lawful being on the Chaos side is :smallfrown:

Nah man. Come to the chaotic side. We have cookies....

Telok

2016-09-26, 06:48 PM

I don't use them. They penalize stuff like monk 4, swordsage 6, fighter 2, despite that being a perfectly reasonable and logical character. On the other hand I had a build as a thought exercise trying to get as many sneak attack dice as possible. That had three levels of rogue, one level of something like six base classes with sneak attack (including a level of swordsage) and bunches of PrCs almost all at one level each, ronin, assassin, master thrower, and others. Human naturally, for the feat. Absolute abomination of classes that were totally unassociated beyond having sneak attack dice. And no xp penalty because it was just total dippage all over the place.

Plus stuff like savage bard, urpriest, mystic theurge, that PrC that kicks bard up to full sorcerer casting, and more mystic theurge in order to cap off with lyric spell twinned repeating miracles at 15th or 16th level (I'm away from my files right now) is completely unaffected either way.

Kantolin

2016-09-26, 08:26 PM

The only thing listed thus far as a plus in its side other than 'well it's an official rule' is 'it makes humans more powerful and I don't want non-humans' which is generally not considered a plus.

Also, it only /sometimes/ makes humans more powerful. If a character is a Fighter 7 / Ranger 7 / Rogue 1, they will suffer an XP penalty if they're human, but won't if they're a halfling.

(Granted, they also wouldn't take an XP penalty if they were Fighter 2 / Ranger 2 / Rogue 2 / Monk 2 / Paladin 2 / Barbarian 2 / Cleric 2 / Horizon Walker 1, or if they'd optimized a little better and gone with some slew of prestige classes that get you the same feel, but we knew that already).

It also has interesting sequences that if the Elven Archer (Ranger 4, or maybe Fighter 4) discovers their mother who just died was a druid and wants to take up the elven druidic traditions that are common among elves... can't. (Or can't without a serious XP penalty), while the Human Archer (Ranger 4) who decides to become a druid for the lulz despite coming from the largest human city in the world and having really nothing to do with druids totally can.

Although the elven archer then /could/ do that if they carefully planned ahead and went Ranger 2 / Fighter 2, then could go Druid 1. Or found a druidy prestige class that fits what they're aiming for. It only really punishes creative people, particularly around the low-op area.

I've been in a game where one character, who was among the weakest of the party, decided to go with a multiclass anyway and ended up being by /far/ the weakest character in the already rather low-op party due to the double whammy of the multiclass being poor and the XP penalty. They did not find it much fun.

I've then run a ton of games without it, since it really doesn't do a whole lot that's positive.

Jon_Dahl

2016-09-26, 11:03 PM

Lorddenorstrus

2016-09-26, 11:13 PM

Do I enforce them? Never. It's moronic. 3.X is the caster edition. They single class then go into a prestige class and are frakking gods. All XP penalties do is punish someone trying to create an interesting (9/10 times MARTIAL) character concept. Martials suck already, making them suck more just screams I don't know what I'm doing. Also as several people have stated, they make the best race in the game better. As is one has to try to get players to stop being Humans because it's boring to have every game be that all human party -_-. Suuure lets buff the best race and make the rest suck more. Said nobody who understood the concept of game balance ever.