XP is a river, favoured class, and catching up from behind

[Particle_Man]

So the favoured class rules, RAW, state that if you have two non-prestige classes 2 or more levels apart, and neither of them is a favoured class, then you suffer a -20% xp penalty.

This is seen as bad (indeed, it is seen as so bad that many people house rule it away).

On the other hand, when it comes to magic item crafting, which costs xp, people wave that away saying "XP is a river, you will catch up do the the lower level people getting more xp anyhow, don't sweat it".

So that made me wonder: Is it really that bad to suffer a -20% xp penalty? Has anyone played a character with such a penalty and did they "catch up"? Was it a problem? If one has not played such a character, how does the "xp is a river" math play out wrt catching up (or at least not getting too far behind)?

[sleepyphoenixx]

You get XP for encounters based on your level.
If you're behind a level because you spent XP on crafting items you automatically get more XP per encounter than your allies until you're the same level again.

The same doesn't apply if you get a flat -20% to your XP. You'll fall behind and stay behind because the extra XP from being lower level (which is also 20% lower) doesn't make up for the penalty.

[Flickerdart]

"XP is a river" is an overstatement, but it's true in principle - when you craft, your new magic item makes you stronger (so you can take on bigger challenges) but your level remains low (so you get a lot of EXP for those challenges). You level up faster than your peers, and catch up eventually (not 100% but you'll level up one or two sessions after everyone else). When you suffer multiclass penalties, you level up slower than your peers, and fall behind rather than catch up.

[ryu]

In other words, one is a penalty of subtraction, while the other is a penalty of division.

[Denver]

Just crunching some numbers off the XP reward table in the DMG, it would seem that the multiclass character would fall behind by one level, and then stay behind by about one level.

I assumed that the multiclass character triggers the XP penalty rule as soon as possible (Elf Rogue 3/Fighter 1, or similar), and followed the mental math up until level 10.

There is perhaps a bit of system neatness in that, given a four person party with only one XP penalized character, the 20% XP penalty is more or less "negated" by the additional XP of being behind by a level, with the exception of some outlying situations. I have to hope that this was deliberate during design, because it essentially freezes the multiclass character to consistently being just about one level behind his party mates, at least through level 10.

Unfortunately, though, it does not appear that there exists a case where a multiclass character can "catch up" to a character who does not multiclass, or even to a character who is a dedicated crafter.

The Multiclass Penalty rule is kind of a harsh punishment.

A better implementation might be a decreasing percentage penalty based on advancement, or a flat penalty based on number of classes and the level disparity between them. I haven't done the math on this, but either alternative would certainly penalize the Multiclass character a little less.

[ryu]

Just crunching some numbers off the XP reward table in the DMG, it would seem that the multiclass character would fall behind by one level, and then stay behind by about one level.

I assumed that the multiclass character triggers the XP penalty rule as soon as possible (Elf Rogue 3/Fighter 1, or similar), and followed the mental math up until level 10.

There is perhaps a bit of system neatness in that, given a four person party with only one XP penalized character, the 20% XP penalty is more or less "negated" by the additional XP of being behind by a level, with the exception of some outlying situations. I have to hope that this was deliberate during design, because it essentially freezes the multiclass character to consistently being just about one level behind his party mates, at least through level 10.

Unfortunately, though, it does not appear that there exists a case where a multiclass character can "catch up" to a character who does not multiclass, or even to a character who is a dedicated crafter.

The Multiclass Penalty rule is kind of a harsh punishment.

A better implementation might be a decreasing percentage penalty based on advancement, or a flat penalty based on number of classes and the level disparity between them. I haven't done the math on this, but either alternative would certainly penalize the Multiclass character a little less.

I mean the reason most tables do away with it is that it hurts generally the least powerful kind of builds. After all full caster 20 or caster with prcs? Fine. Melee dip build that never takes more than two levels in ANY class? Fine. Guy who took ten straight levels in paladin then took a level in cleric because he thought it fit the concept? Sucks to be him!

[Uncle Pine]

It's also worth noting that many consider the multiclass xp penalty a flawed concept because it's literally possible to wind up with a -100% penalty.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's generally considered a bad rule because it seeks to redress a "problem" that was determined to be one on a flawed assumption.

It was presumed that multiclassing is -inherently- more powerful than single-classing. This is categorically false. At the lowest level, the power-curve of a multiclass character may -just- peek over the curve of a single-class character but the latter quickly overtakes the former until and unless a PrC brings them in line with one another.

The XP penalty was put in place to bring multiclass characters down to the level of single-class characters by reducing their level by one and keeping it there relative to their allies but this actually traps them in a state of always being less powerful unless they enter a PrC with a massive power boost. There aren't many of those.

It's a bad rule, just ignore it.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It was presumed that multiclassing is -inherently- more powerful than single-classing. This is categorically false. At the lowest level, the power-curve of a multiclass character may -just- peek over the curve of a single-class character but the latter quickly overtakes the former until and unless a PrC brings them in line with one another.

The XP penalty was put in place to bring multiclass characters down to the level of single-class characters by reducing their level by one and keeping it there relative to their allies but this actually traps them in a state of always being less powerful unless they enter a PrC with a massive power boost. There aren't many of those.


That idea would make sense, but that would require that it was applied equally. It's not, thanks to favored classes.
Even ignoring the disparity between races, humans having "Favored Class:any" kind of makes me doubt that it was entirely intended for balance reasons. Or conceived while sober.

Or maybe the writers knew so little about their game mechanics that they thought humans needed the boost because of their "subpar" class features? But only if they multiclass?
Looking at half-orcs kinda supports that interpretation (the first half, if you squint). Poor humans don't even get a bonus to one of the "lesser" ability scores like Int or Wis!

In the end i don't think anyone can really get back into the mindset that was required for some of the design decisions that were made.
Suffice to say that this particular gem should be discarded.

[frogglesmash]

Considering it only penalizes characters who don't invest equally in all their classes I think that the original goal was to prevent dipping specifically, and not multiclassing in general. Dipping is the hallmark of a power gamer afterall.

[Necroticplague]

Considering it only penalizes characters who don't invest equally in all their classes I think that the original goal was to prevent dipping specifically, and not multiclassing in general. Dipping is the hallmark of a power gamer afterall.
Unfortunately, kinda backfires, considering that excessive dipping actually can decrease the penalty. Can't get a multiclassing penalty if you never take more than two levels in a class!

It's generally considered a bad rule because it seeks to redress a "problem" that was determined to be one on a flawed assumption.

It was presumed that multiclassing is -inherently- more powerful than single-classing. This is categorically false. At the lowest level, the power-curve of a multiclass character may -just- peek over the curve of a single-class character but the latter quickly overtakes the former until and unless a PrC brings them in line with one another.

The XP penalty was put in place to bring multiclass characters down to the level of single-class characters by reducing their level by one and keeping it there relative to their allies but this actually traps them in a state of always being less powerful unless they enter a PrC with a massive power boost. There aren't many of those.

It's a bad rule, just ignore it.
Honestly, I was always confused as heck as to where their assumption comes from. After all, multiclassing trades away higher level abilities for lower ones. So getting an ability appropriate for a first level character when you're level 11, instead of a an ability appropriate for an 11th level character, should inherently be a bad deal. For an extreme example, getting twice as many first-level slots is nowhere near the value of getting a single 9th level slot. So it seems inclusion of the multiclassing penalty is a tacit admission that some classes have higher level abilities that aren't as good as low-level abilities in other classes, which seems to contradict the other assumptions that all classes are roughly equal (also a wrong assumption, of course, but one they seemed to have).

It's also worth noting that many consider the multiclass xp penalty a flawed concept because it's literally possible to wind up with a -100% penalty.
Actually, it's possible to go even above 100%, thanks to the before-mentioned 'excessive dips aren't punished'. If you have, say, 1 class with 2 levels, then 10 classes with one level each, and then take a third level in the class you have two of, your penalty shoots from 0% at level 12, to 200% at level 13.

[Zancloufer]

Actually, it's possible to go even above 100%, thanks to the before-mentioned 'excessive dips aren't punished'. If you have, say, 1 class with 2 levels, then 10 classes with one level each, and then take a third level in the class you have two of, your penalty shoots from 0% at level 12, to 200% at level 13.

Ignoring how one would gain EXP with -100% of it, what happens at -200% EXP gain? Do you like un-level or something?

Could become stuck in some eternal pendulum if you reduced that initial EXP penalty to -90%. Level up, suffer -180% EXP instantly delevel, go back to -90% EXP, gain level again.

Sounds like the kind of stuff that would instantly crash a CRPG if it was added. Wait, looks like that was house-ruled away in many CRPGs, I wonder why. . .

[Zanos]

Considering it only penalizes characters who don't invest equally in all their classes I think that the original goal was to prevent dipping specifically, and not multiclassing in general. Dipping is the hallmark of a power gamer afterall.
Yeah, damn that powergaming Elminster with his 1 level of Fighter, 2 levels of Rogue, and 3 levels of Cleric.

[Starbuck_II]

Unfortunately, kinda backfires, considering that excessive dipping actually can decrease the penalty. Can't get a multiclassing penalty if you never take more than two levels in a class!

Honestly, I was always confused as heck as to where their assumption comes from. After all, multiclassing trades away higher level abilities for lower ones. So getting an ability appropriate for a first level character when you're level 11, instead of a an ability appropriate for an 11th level character, should inherently be a bad deal. For an extreme example, getting twice as many first-level slots is nowhere near the value of getting a single 9th level slot. So it seems inclusion of the multiclassing penalty is a tacit admission that some classes have higher level abilities that aren't as good as low-level abilities in other classes, which seems to contradict the other assumptions that all classes are roughly equal (also a wrong assumption, of course, but one they seemed to have).

Actually, it's possible to go even above 100%, thanks to the before-mentioned 'excessive dips aren't punished'. If you have, say, 1 class with 2 levels, then 10 classes with one level each, and then take a third level in the class you have two of, your penalty shoots from 0% at level 12, to 200% at level 13.

How high can you go with that penalty?
If we have gnome Fighter1 /Crusader 1/Swordsage 1/Duskblade 1/Soulborn 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Knight 1/Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Dragon Shaman 1/Favored Soul 1/ Warblade 3, what is my total at 14 level?
11 x20 =220 XP, so I lose double what I get from now on?

[Necroticplague]

How high can you go with that penalty?
If we have gnome Fighter1 /Crusader 1/Swordsage 1/Duskblade 1/Soulborn 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Knight 1/Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Dragon Shaman 1/Favored Soul 1/ Warblade 3, what is my total at 14 level?
11 x20 =220 XP, so I lose double what I get from now on?

Theoretically? -340% by level 20, when you have 3 levels in a base class, 17 first-level dips, and none of you classes are a favored class.

[ATHATH]

It's generally considered a bad rule because it seeks to redress a "problem" that was determined to be one on a flawed assumption.

It was presumed that multiclassing is -inherently- more powerful than single-classing. This is categorically false. At the lowest level, the power-curve of a multiclass character may -just- peek over the curve of a single-class character but the latter quickly overtakes the former until and unless a PrC brings them in line with one another.

The XP penalty was put in place to bring multiclass characters down to the level of single-class characters by reducing their level by one and keeping it there relative to their allies but this actually traps them in a state of always being less powerful unless they enter a PrC with a massive power boost. There aren't many of those.

It's a bad rule, just ignore it.
Well, IIRC, multi/dual-classing kicked $%^ in 1st and 2nd edition, so that might have caused some undue overcompensation ("Now even non-humans can dual-class (multiple times!) AND they can take levels in their original class(es) after dual-ing! That's so broken! We have to nerf this!").

[ryu]

Well, IIRC, multi/dual-classing kicked $%^ in 1st and 2nd edition, so that might have caused some undue overcompensation ("Now even non-humans can dual-class (multiple times!) AND they can take levels in their original class(es) after dual-ing! That's so broken! We have to nerf this!").

Except, like, did they ever actually test if THAT was a better use of resources than just sticking with a class that gets actual things at high levels? Oh or did they just say it was overpowered without any reasoning as is common?

[daremetoidareyo]

Theoretically? -340% by level 20, when you have 3 levels in a base class, 17 first-level dips, and none of you classes are a favored class.

So every adventure you complete for experience, you lose 3.4*the experience that you would have gained? How did you level up past -200%?

Can this be weaponized? When you lose a class level from gaining experience, do you have to choose the same class level as you did last time? Are there any class levels with instantaneous 1st level effects that you can carry into the future? Because you could hang out at the cusp of -80% to -100%, making magic items to kick yourself back down to -80%, adventure back up to -100%, choose a new class, reap the benefit, and craft till you're one level lower again. At the end, finally choose to level a class to keep the gap at -80% and finish your career.

[Necroticplague]

So every adventure you complete for experience, you lose 3.4*the experience that you would have gained? How did you level up past -200%?

You didn't. You use the methodology I described earlier to go straight from 0% to 340%. At level 19, you build is, say Elf dfa2/psywar1/psion1/rogue1/fighter1/factotum1/barbarian1/bard1/sorcerer1/cleric1/druid1/monk1/ranger1/crusader1/swordsage1/warblade1/archivist1/beguiler1. 0% penalty, since none of you classes are two level apart from your highest level class. So for your 20th level, you pick up another level in dfa. Now, you have 17 classes that are two levels apart from your highest levelled class.

[vasilidor]

one detail about this is at conventions and organized play people would intentionally rack up a 100% penalty just to keep playing their characters. they racked up a lot of loot as well, completely blowing the concept of wealth by level because of this. so if you could think of a concept/design that would be an effective level 13 character (I think that was the level limit for 3rd & 3.5 organized play...) that is what some people would do. of course wotc eventually caught on.

[Starbuck_II]

one detail about this is at conventions and organized play people would intentionally rack up a 100% penalty just to keep playing their characters. they racked up a lot of loot as well, completely blowing the concept of wealth by level because of this. so if you could think of a concept/design that would be an effective level 13 character (I think that was the level limit for 3rd & 3.5 organized play...) that is what some people would do. of course wotc eventually caught on.

I love it genius. But you would have to multiclass so much. Really hard earlier on in 3.5 Career, but there are enough splatbooks, I can see it working now.

[Particle_Man]

Now I am curious about some of these "permanently level 13" builds. So you need at least 5 classes and you don't want the penalty to hit too early, so probably close to each other until one gets 2 levels away from all the others? So 1/2/2/2/2/4 at 13th? Taking a hit of 20% on the way there at 12th with 1/2/2/2/2/3?

What is a good optimized build for that?

[zergling.exe]

Now I am curious about some of these "permanently level 13" builds. So you need at least 5 classes and you don't want the penalty to hit too early, so probably close to each other until one gets 2 levels away from all the others? So 1/2/2/2/2/4 at 13th? Taking a hit of 20% on the way there at 12th with 1/2/2/2/2/3?

What is a good optimized build for that?

Or you could just take 8 levels of your main class then slowly build up a penalty till you reach 100% taking more classes. It's not necessary to jump all at once from 0-100%, that's only needed if you feel like going over a 100% XP penalty.

[ryu]

Or you could just take 8 levels of your main class then slowly build up a penalty till you reach 100% taking more classes. It's not necessary to jump all at once from 0-100%, that's only needed if you feel like going over a 100% XP penalty.

Yeah but assuming you can get a coherent concept going with more classes being on level with the expected challenges is an advantage.

[Crake]

"XP is a river" is an overstatement, but it's true in principle - when you craft, your new magic item makes you stronger (so you can take on bigger challenges) but your level remains low (so you get a lot of EXP for those challenges). You level up faster than your peers, and catch up eventually (not 100% but you'll level up one or two sessions after everyone else). When you suffer multiclass penalties, you level up slower than your peers, and fall behind rather than catch up.

Bolded part for emphasis.

That's not actually true. I've had times when my players were maybe a couple thousand xp apart, and then participated in a large encounter, where the lower level character got so much more xp than the higher level ones that they actually OVERTOOK them.

[Fizban]

Crake has hit on the boomerang effect. In a game with precisely planned out xp, crafting will put you just a few below level up. The percentage boost (around 30%?) on the next encounter can cause you to end up with more xp than your fellows when the bonus is larger than the amount you were behind. If the xp was planned out such that you'd level up at the end of a long day with a boss fight, and your DM has you level up on rest rather than mid-day, you could have 30% or more of of level's worth of encounters boosted by that 30%. Ending up a whole encounter ahead of your fellows rather than behind.

[Uncle Pine]

If you start crafting and lose exp while having a -200% xp penalty from multiclassing, do you gain twice the exp you lost?

[ryu]

If you start crafting and lose exp while having a -200% xp penalty from multiclassing, do you gain twice the exp you lost?

Artificer Best Class in Game! Seriously though actually pretty good class. Just gets better like this.

[ShurikVch]

If you start crafting and lose exp while having a -200% xp penalty from multiclassing, do you gain twice the exp you lost?Actually, it doesn't even required any crafting: Burial Blessing is a 1st level spell and cost 100 XP

[Flickerdart]

Bolded part for emphasis.

That's not actually true. I've had times when my players were maybe a couple thousand xp apart, and then participated in a large encounter, where the lower level character got so much more xp than the higher level ones that they actually OVERTOOK them.

Sure, there are cases where weird D&D math is weird. But in general, once you start losing XP, you should not expect to ever catch up completely - not that it matters most of the time.

[Zanos]

Being a level behind gets you roughly 10-40% more experience from an encounter, so that's a lot of experience to spend on items, permanent spells, etc.

[vasilidor]

the thing is a few years before switching away from 3.5 to 4th edition the xp penalty was capped at 60% just to make those characters go away. to my mind the most effective character concepts were the ones who were mostly warrior types, and it wasn't until wotc had come out with a few additional base classes before the trend became noticeable. so in the end, before the xp penalty cap, character classes probably looked like ranger 1/ fighter 1/ barbarian 1/ rogue 2/ UA warrior 7/ cleric 1. you would have a base attack of 11, some fairly decent saving throws, evasion, a little spell casting etc. to my understanding most of the play testing was done with joke characters who were horribly optimized most of the time.

I may be wrong about some of this, for while i did read up on the organized play rules from time to time, most of the rest of my information comes from second and third hand sources.

[ryu]

the thing is a few years before switching away from 3.5 to 4th edition the xp penalty was capped at 60% just to make those characters go away. to my mind the most effective character concepts were the ones who were mostly warrior types, and it wasn't until wotc had come out with a few additional base classes before the trend became noticeable. so in the end, before the xp penalty cap, character classes probably looked like ranger 1/ fighter 1/ barbarian 1/ rogue 2/ UA warrior 7/ cleric 1. you would have a base attack of 11, some fairly decent saving throws, evasion, a little spell casting etc. to my understanding most of the play testing was done with joke characters who were horribly optimized most of the time.

I may be wrong about some of this, for while i did read up on the organized play rules from time to time, most of the rest of my information comes from second and third hand sources.

Mostly right with one error. The playtest characters weren't joke charac... well not INTENTIONAL joke characters. The devs understood literally jack all about what was and wasn't effective.