[3.5] Any "Official" Way to Dump Multiclassing Penalties?

[ATHATH]

Has WotC ever published an optional rule or something that gets rid of the multiclassing XP penalty? Maybe something from Unearthed Arcana or a web article?

I really don't like the multiclassing XP penalty, but at the same time, I dislike having to houserule things in a non-official manner (it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth; don't ask me why).

[Doctor Despair]

Has WotC ever published an optional rule or something that gets rid of the multiclassing XP penalty? Maybe something from Unearthed Arcana or a web article?

I really don't like the multiclassing XP penalty, but at the same time, I dislike having to houserule things in a non-official manner (it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth; don't ask me why).

Make sure everyone multi classes so the party XP is static?

[Psyren]

Your most productive course of action in the long run would be to work at altering your mindset. Lots of elements in this game need houserules to work properly (or even to function at all) and "houserule" is not a dirty word.

[ShurikVch]

How about the feats which adding new Favored Classes?

[Darrin]

Thrall of Demogorgon 8, "Two Personas" ability, Book of Vile Darkness p. 68.

Also, "Additional Favored Class" feat, Unearthed Arcana p. 100.

[Jay R]

The official way to do this is found on page 6 of the Dungeon Masters Guide.


When everybody gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge... Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel.

That's the actual rule. Therefore deciding not to use the multiclassing XP penalty isn't "houseruling things in a non-official manner." It's actually houseruling things in a 100% official manner.

You are questioning it and looking for that good, logical explanation. Good for you - a reluctance to change the rules is essential. I suggest that the next step is to ask your players their opinion.

But a complete unwillingness to dump a rule that you "really don't like" is a far bigger change to the rules than dumping the multiclassing XP penalty.

[Crichton]

If you're really worried about it, the Additional Favored Class feat from UA (mentioned above by Darrin) fits your request pretty much perfectly. Heck, if you're worried enough about it that you don't want to make your players burn a feat on it, give them a magic item that grants the feat (there are rules for that), or find another way to legitimize it using the existing rules. The feat exists, you can decide how to give it to your players.

[ayvango]

I second the question. There are plenty of rare base classes that is favoured by no race.

[Gusmo]

Your most productive course of action in the long run would be to work at altering your mindset. Lots of elements in this game need houserules to work properly (or even to function at all) and "houserule" is not a dirty word.

This. Seriously, this. With the benefit of years of hindsight about how 3rd edition actually functions at tables, don't discard functional wisdom because of a misguided sense of sanctity for RAW.

[Endarire]

Tabletop gaming isn't so sacred as to be immutable.

For some, part of the fun of tabletop gaming is that it's generally easily customizable for those involved. There may be illions of officially-printed options, but if your group prefers another, then, GM willing, it is so.

[RedMage125]

Your most productive course of action in the long run would be to work at altering your mindset. Lots of elements in this game need houserules to work properly (or even to function at all) and "houserule" is not a dirty word.


This. Seriously, this. With the benefit of years of hindsight about how 3rd edition actually functions at tables, don't discard functional wisdom because of a misguided sense of sanctity for RAW.


Tabletop gaming isn't so sacred as to be immutable.

For some, part of the fun of tabletop gaming is that it's generally easily customizable for those involved. There may be illions of officially-printed options, but if your group prefers another, then, GM willing, it is so.

All of this.

I get a reputation on the forums for advocating adherence to strict-RAW, so I want to be clear: That only applies to creating a stable platform when discussing rules on the forums. I'm a firm believer that D&D (and 3.x especially) is a game that thrives on customization. Even I use (about 5 or 6) house rules in my home game.

Really, the only "wrong" way to play D&D is one at which people at your table are not having fun. I've only ever played with ONE group that used them, and that DM got so sick of the extra math for calculating everyone's XP that even HE abandoned it.

It's also not much of a "house rule" if it's something you just drop that has no reaching mechanical impact.

Example: Some people completely remove alignment from the game. That ends up having mechanical impact in the form of also removing or severely altering spells (Holy Smite, etc), weapons (holy/unholy), monsters (outsiders), Prestige Classes, and several other cascading effects.

But Multiclassing penalties? If you drop that rule entirely, there's no impact whatsoever on any other facet of the game. And if everyone at your table thinks it should be dropped, maybe doing so is the right choice.

Just make sure everyone at your table knows which-if any-house rules will be in place ahead of time.