Basis for Multiclassing GP penalty? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Basis for Multiclassing GP penalty? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ballistyx
02-09-07, 03:31 AM Having looked through the forums I could not find a thread that specifically addresses this.

After reading through the LGCS Draft I have a question of the campaign leadership reguarding the change in rules to now include a GP penalty to uneven Mulitclass charaters. I would like to know what the basis for this ruling is, as I could find no "Core" campaign rule basis for it. I went back and reread all relevant rules sources(PHB) for multiclassing and could find nothing about a GP penalty.

If it is to try and maintain game balance against people abusing the system then bravo to the Circle, but what about those of us not abusing the rules.

What about the 7th lvl Elf Wiz5/Rog2 who got reincarnated into a dwarf because he died in the mod and it was the only way to bring him back. Why should he have to be punished?

What about the character that was forced to take a class due to something that happened in a module? He didn't neccessarily have a choice, not knowing full consequences of decissions until AR's were passed out. Not only is he now taking an unwanted XP penalty but he is being told that he must eat a GP penalty as well.

What about the character that had to have a few off levels in another class to qualify for a PrC?

Why should we as players be penalized for playing a legal character at the appropriate APL. We know not to expect full XP because it is stated in the PHB that we won't, but there is nothing about not receiving full gold.

This seems to be a very heavy handed way for the Circle to fix a percieved problem. Will those of us with XP penalties be allowed rebuilds or will we just have to suck it up?

Jonathan
Morgen
02-09-07, 03:49 AM Okay, you see, there are people (don't tell me there arn't, I've seen them) who perposefully get an XP penalty to get ahead on the GP curve.

If you see them, thank them for ruining everyone else's fun. It's that simple. People did something that was against the spirit of the game, the Circle knew about it and decided it was becomming a problem, and put a stop to it.

In LG the XP penalty and the GP penalty don't mean a whole lot since your not forced to try and keep up with specific other people, you can continue to adventure at an APL for as long as your character qualifies to do so.

And Reincarnation is a gamble, if you take that chance you have to deal with the results like anything else in life. Plus you always have the option of starting over.
Puggle Halfwine
02-09-07, 03:54 AM My primary character just took a third level of fighter, meaning I now have exp penalties (for one class), so this directly affects me. I think this rule is both balanced and fair, much as I think of almost everything in this most recent LGCS. And I say 'almost' simply because I havn't really read it all that well, so I'm leaving a caveat in case I *do* find something...
pedr
02-09-07, 04:09 AM Um, modules which force you to take a particular class?? The what?

I have a hard time imagining any way in which that's a legitimate way for a module to treat a Player Character - and it's also difficult to work out how that fits within the D&D idea of levelling as reflecting the off-screen stuff you've done in between adventures.

Hmm. It'd be good to know which regions/authors have done such things, so I can avoid them.
Qworg
02-09-07, 04:11 AM The problem is that the equal % doesn't take into account disposable magic and fixed costs.

I saw a nice example in another thread that had two characters, both 6th level (900 XP, 900 GP). One has a 30% XP penalty and the other doesn't.

In the next 3 modules, they get standard lifestyle (12 gp/TU) and buy a few wands (1500 gp total for each).

Player w/ penalty ends up with 1890 gp - 1500 - 36 = 354 gp
Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 36 = 1164 gp

If I had known that multiclassing would be even more penalized than it is, I wouldn't have multiclassed (can I get a rebuild?) =(
Morgen
02-09-07, 04:25 AM Multiclassing isn't where your getting hurt, it's that your classes arn't matching up enough to let you do it without the penalty.

You know for a game where everything you find just magically gets sold to some nameless beings and then they charge you double what you got paid to get it back, and numerous copies appear from now where and you always get paid the same no matter how much work you seem to do, I'm amazed that a random % loss would even really phase you guys.
cycloptic_squirrel
02-09-07, 04:30 AM Is it just me, or can similiar situations be acomplished gold/exp rewards per adventure discrepencies show up if we compare someone who plays up to someone who plays down?

Same character, three adventures, he earns 2700 gp/xp for APL 6 vs 1950 gp/xp for APL 4. Similiar 'penalties'.

Don't get me wrong, the guy getting less gp/xp per adventure will spend more on consumables, upkeep, etc., but looking at it per level these characters will typically have more favors, more access, and more opportunities to 'earn' money by profession etc. Not a perfect trade, but the benifits you're getting can't be ignored.

Play tight with cash until you can negate some of the penalties and/or make use of the charity of friends if it gets too terrible. If you're burning through consumables at a rate of 60% of your income, you're going to have cash flow problems anyway.
scon40
02-09-07, 08:33 AM 1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it).
2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well.
3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance.
Mommy was an Orc
02-09-07, 09:28 AM The problem is that the equal % doesn't take into account disposable magic and fixed costs.

I saw a nice example in another thread that had two characters, both 6th level (900 XP, 900 GP). One has a 30% XP penalty and the other doesn't.

In the next 3 modules, they get standard lifestyle (12 gp/TU) and buy a few wands (1500 gp total for each).

Player w/ penalty ends up with 1890 gp - 1500 - 36 = 354 gp
Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 36 = 1164 gp

If I had known that multiclassing would be even more penalized than it is, I wouldn't have multiclassed (can I get a rebuild?) =(

That's not quite the right example - take a character with a 40% who plays 5 mods and a character without who plays 3 mods. Both get 2700 XP. In their mods, they do your example:
Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp -1500 - 36 = 1164 gp.
Player with penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 60 = 1140 gp.

There's problems if the character with the penalty doesn't adjust for consumables - a character with a 40% XP penalty should use 40% less consumables in any given mod.
Britt
02-09-07, 01:19 PM x-posting from the Perrenland list, since it explains several issues:

Re: New LGCS and Druids

To clarify, this is not aimed at people abusing the rules. Anyone that
was taking an XP hit, whether intentional or not, was gaining a
benefit in LG. Whether you realize it or not, a 20% XP hit increases
your gold relative to your level. It doesn't matter if you intended
it. Having people abuse it just makes it an even bigger problem.
Points addressed below:

--- In perrenland@yahoogroups.com, Peter Barker <pbarker@...> wrote:
> OK. So why not go the other way? No cross-classing penalties at all.

Because an XP penalty is supposed to be a penalty, hence the name. No
penalty takes out an intended downside of the mechanics. This ties
into the fact that an XP hit was actually a benefit in LG, the
opposite of what it was intended to be.

> Was this proposal ever put forward for this LGCS?

Yes.

> - your character retires once their net worth exceeds CL16 starting gold

And then every character is forced to always have a tracking sheet for
their net worth, which we did not want to force on people.

> - Your un-cross-class-penalised XP is a separate calculation to your
> AR-recorded XP. You retire once this total exceeds CL17(18..19...)

We did not want to add another level of accounting to the system when
people already rightly complain that there is a ton of paperwork.

> - Your character has a gold limit based on their XP.

Which brings up the problem of having to recompute your wealth all the
time, similar to the annoyances of cohorts, but for everyone.

> - note that we now have this with the "Charity of Friends" clause
for
> /below/ the curve

But the new Charity of Friends is an optional calculation that someone
can do if they feel that their value is low. Noone is forced to do it,
which makes it more acceptable.

> Oh, quick note. This is a damned fine document.

Thanks. :)

Britt Frey
Living Greyhawk Circle - IUZ Metaregion
Ballistyx
02-09-07, 01:23 PM Hmm. It'd be good to know which regions/authors have done such things, so I can avoid them.

The module in question is an active Core mod.
Munkwunk
02-09-07, 01:24 PM Um, modules which force you to take a particular class?? The what?
There is one particular mod (edit: apparently active) in which one person at the table can end up being forced to take their next level as a certain class.

Personally, I don't think the GP penalty is very fair, for most of the reasons stated in the original post. It's bad enough that someone who gets Reincarnated may suddenly face an XP penalty, but now they are also faced with a GP penalty. The XP penalty is understandable -- that's a Core rule and it's something we've had to live with. The GP penalty is not a Core rule and it changes certain aspects of the game.

I keep hearing that LG can't make house rules here and there because the Circle doesn't have power over the Core rule aspects of the game, but that's not what I'm seeing in practice. (Ugh, I really don't mean to be inflamatory. I think a lot of the negativity I've seen around here lately is starting to get to me. My apologies in advance.)

Edit: After reading Britt's post, I suppose it does make sense.
Qworg
02-09-07, 04:53 PM That's not quite the right example - take a character with a 40% who plays 5 mods and a character without who plays 3 mods. Both get 2700 XP. In their mods, they do your example:
Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp -1500 - 36 = 1164 gp.
Player with penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 60 = 1140 gp.

There's problems if the character with the penalty doesn't adjust for consumables - a character with a 40% XP penalty should use 40% less consumables in any given mod.

This argument is rather disingenuous - why would a character with an XP penalty use less resources per module played? Is there a Monster Penalty as well - 40% less creatures to go along with your 40% penalty?

In the end, it is painful on both ends - you level slower AND you're in the hole gold wise.
Mommy was an Orc
02-09-07, 05:55 PM This argument is rather disingenuous - why would a character with an XP penalty use less resources per module played? Is there a Monster Penalty as well - 40% less creatures to go along with your 40% penalty?

In the end, it is painful on both ends - you level slower AND you're in the hole gold wise.

Because a character who knows he's getting less gold should spend less. If you were making $100K a year and are now making $60K, do you go out and spend the same amount of money as you used to? No one is forcing you to use consumables at the same rate you used to - you might feel like you have to do so, but that's you getting your character in trouble long-term.

(edit: and just to note - leveling slower is a penalty in your head - yes, you might like to level faster, but being lower level isn't a penalty at a lower level table...)
Mixmaster15
02-09-07, 06:18 PM The module in question is an active Core mod.

So Britt, you have not addressed this. I have a character that did that good deed and now has a 20% XP and GP penalty. Any possibility on rectifying that and was this mod brought to your attention when discussing the GP penalty.

Please advise.

Oh, and BTW: You've done good Circle. And Britt?? Your communication on the issues makes the review period a two-way communication. I bow down to you, sir.
Britt
02-09-07, 06:20 PM I know of the mod. It's been discussed and has nothing to do with the LGCS, so I'm not discussing it here.

If you need clarification on whether the class is supposed to be a favored class, as has been hinted by some, email Creighton.
Mixmaster15
02-09-07, 06:28 PM I know of the mod. It's been discussed and has nothing to do with the LGCS, so I'm not discussing it here.

If you need clarification on whether the class is supposed to be a favored class, as has been hinted by some, email Creighton.

Now that's fast. I will email Creighton and I appreciate the reply.

Like I said before: Your communication on the issues makes the review period a two-way communication. I bow down AGAIN to you, sir.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ballistyx 02-09-07, 03:31 AM	Having looked through the forums I could not find a thread that specifically addresses this. After reading through the LGCS Draft I have a question of the campaign leadership reguarding the change in rules to now include a GP penalty to uneven Mulitclass charaters. I would like to know what the basis for this ruling is, as I could find no "Core" campaign rule basis for it. I went back and reread all relevant rules sources(PHB) for multiclassing and could find nothing about a GP penalty. If it is to try and maintain game balance against people abusing the system then bravo to the Circle, but what about those of us not abusing the rules. What about the 7th lvl Elf Wiz5/Rog2 who got reincarnated into a dwarf because he died in the mod and it was the only way to bring him back. Why should he have to be punished? What about the character that was forced to take a class due to something that happened in a module? He didn't neccessarily have a choice, not knowing full consequences of decissions until AR's were passed out. Not only is he now taking an unwanted XP penalty but he is being told that he must eat a GP penalty as well. What about the character that had to have a few off levels in another class to qualify for a PrC? Why should we as players be penalized for playing a legal character at the appropriate APL. We know not to expect full XP because it is stated in the PHB that we won't, but there is nothing about not receiving full gold. This seems to be a very heavy handed way for the Circle to fix a percieved problem. Will those of us with XP penalties be allowed rebuilds or will we just have to suck it up? Jonathan
Morgen 02-09-07, 03:49 AM	Okay, you see, there are people (don't tell me there arn't, I've seen them) who perposefully get an XP penalty to get ahead on the GP curve. If you see them, thank them for ruining everyone else's fun. It's that simple. People did something that was against the spirit of the game, the Circle knew about it and decided it was becomming a problem, and put a stop to it. In LG the XP penalty and the GP penalty don't mean a whole lot since your not forced to try and keep up with specific other people, you can continue to adventure at an APL for as long as your character qualifies to do so. And Reincarnation is a gamble, if you take that chance you have to deal with the results like anything else in life. Plus you always have the option of starting over.
Puggle Halfwine 02-09-07, 03:54 AM	My primary character just took a third level of fighter, meaning I now have exp penalties (for one class), so this directly affects me. I think this rule is both balanced and fair, much as I think of almost everything in this most recent LGCS. And I say 'almost' simply because I havn't really read it all that well, so I'm leaving a caveat in case I do find something...
pedr 02-09-07, 04:09 AM	Um, modules which force you to take a particular class?? The what? I have a hard time imagining any way in which that's a legitimate way for a module to treat a Player Character - and it's also difficult to work out how that fits within the D&D idea of levelling as reflecting the off-screen stuff you've done in between adventures. Hmm. It'd be good to know which regions/authors have done such things, so I can avoid them.
Qworg 02-09-07, 04:11 AM	The problem is that the equal % doesn't take into account disposable magic and fixed costs. I saw a nice example in another thread that had two characters, both 6th level (900 XP, 900 GP). One has a 30% XP penalty and the other doesn't. In the next 3 modules, they get standard lifestyle (12 gp/TU) and buy a few wands (1500 gp total for each). Player w/ penalty ends up with 1890 gp - 1500 - 36 = 354 gp Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 36 = 1164 gp If I had known that multiclassing would be even more penalized than it is, I wouldn't have multiclassed (can I get a rebuild?) =(
Morgen 02-09-07, 04:25 AM	Multiclassing isn't where your getting hurt, it's that your classes arn't matching up enough to let you do it without the penalty. You know for a game where everything you find just magically gets sold to some nameless beings and then they charge you double what you got paid to get it back, and numerous copies appear from now where and you always get paid the same no matter how much work you seem to do, I'm amazed that a random % loss would even really phase you guys.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 04:30 AM	Is it just me, or can similiar situations be acomplished gold/exp rewards per adventure discrepencies show up if we compare someone who plays up to someone who plays down? Same character, three adventures, he earns 2700 gp/xp for APL 6 vs 1950 gp/xp for APL 4. Similiar 'penalties'. Don't get me wrong, the guy getting less gp/xp per adventure will spend more on consumables, upkeep, etc., but looking at it per level these characters will typically have more favors, more access, and more opportunities to 'earn' money by profession etc. Not a perfect trade, but the benifits you're getting can't be ignored. Play tight with cash until you can negate some of the penalties and/or make use of the charity of friends if it gets too terrible. If you're burning through consumables at a rate of 60% of your income, you're going to have cash flow problems anyway.
scon40 02-09-07, 08:33 AM	1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it). 2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well. 3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance.
Mommy was an Orc 02-09-07, 09:28 AM	The problem is that the equal % doesn't take into account disposable magic and fixed costs. I saw a nice example in another thread that had two characters, both 6th level (900 XP, 900 GP). One has a 30% XP penalty and the other doesn't. In the next 3 modules, they get standard lifestyle (12 gp/TU) and buy a few wands (1500 gp total for each). Player w/ penalty ends up with 1890 gp - 1500 - 36 = 354 gp Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 36 = 1164 gp If I had known that multiclassing would be even more penalized than it is, I wouldn't have multiclassed (can I get a rebuild?) =( That's not quite the right example - take a character with a 40% who plays 5 mods and a character without who plays 3 mods. Both get 2700 XP. In their mods, they do your example: Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp -1500 - 36 = 1164 gp. Player with penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 60 = 1140 gp. There's problems if the character with the penalty doesn't adjust for consumables - a character with a 40% XP penalty should use 40% less consumables in any given mod.
Britt 02-09-07, 01:19 PM	x-posting from the Perrenland list, since it explains several issues: Re: New LGCS and Druids To clarify, this is not aimed at people abusing the rules. Anyone that was taking an XP hit, whether intentional or not, was gaining a benefit in LG. Whether you realize it or not, a 20% XP hit increases your gold relative to your level. It doesn't matter if you intended it. Having people abuse it just makes it an even bigger problem. Points addressed below: --- In perrenland@yahoogroups.com, Peter Barker <pbarker@...> wrote: > OK. So why not go the other way? No cross-classing penalties at all. Because an XP penalty is supposed to be a penalty, hence the name. No penalty takes out an intended downside of the mechanics. This ties into the fact that an XP hit was actually a benefit in LG, the opposite of what it was intended to be. > Was this proposal ever put forward for this LGCS? Yes. > - your character retires once their net worth exceeds CL16 starting gold And then every character is forced to always have a tracking sheet for their net worth, which we did not want to force on people. > - Your un-cross-class-penalised XP is a separate calculation to your > AR-recorded XP. You retire once this total exceeds CL17(18..19...) We did not want to add another level of accounting to the system when people already rightly complain that there is a ton of paperwork. > - Your character has a gold limit based on their XP. Which brings up the problem of having to recompute your wealth all the time, similar to the annoyances of cohorts, but for everyone. > - note that we now have this with the "Charity of Friends" clause for > /below/ the curve But the new Charity of Friends is an optional calculation that someone can do if they feel that their value is low. Noone is forced to do it, which makes it more acceptable. > Oh, quick note. This is a damned fine document. Thanks. :) Britt Frey Living Greyhawk Circle - IUZ Metaregion
Ballistyx 02-09-07, 01:23 PM	Hmm. It'd be good to know which regions/authors have done such things, so I can avoid them. The module in question is an active Core mod.
Munkwunk 02-09-07, 01:24 PM	Um, modules which force you to take a particular class?? The what? There is one particular mod (edit: apparently active) in which one person at the table can end up being forced to take their next level as a certain class. Personally, I don't think the GP penalty is very fair, for most of the reasons stated in the original post. It's bad enough that someone who gets Reincarnated may suddenly face an XP penalty, but now they are also faced with a GP penalty. The XP penalty is understandable -- that's a Core rule and it's something we've had to live with. The GP penalty is not a Core rule and it changes certain aspects of the game. I keep hearing that LG can't make house rules here and there because the Circle doesn't have power over the Core rule aspects of the game, but that's not what I'm seeing in practice. (Ugh, I really don't mean to be inflamatory. I think a lot of the negativity I've seen around here lately is starting to get to me. My apologies in advance.) Edit: After reading Britt's post, I suppose it does make sense.
Qworg 02-09-07, 04:53 PM	That's not quite the right example - take a character with a 40% who plays 5 mods and a character without who plays 3 mods. Both get 2700 XP. In their mods, they do your example: Player w/o penalty ends up with 2700 gp -1500 - 36 = 1164 gp. Player with penalty ends up with 2700 gp - 1500 - 60 = 1140 gp. There's problems if the character with the penalty doesn't adjust for consumables - a character with a 40% XP penalty should use 40% less consumables in any given mod. This argument is rather disingenuous - why would a character with an XP penalty use less resources per module played? Is there a Monster Penalty as well - 40% less creatures to go along with your 40% penalty? In the end, it is painful on both ends - you level slower AND you're in the hole gold wise.
Mommy was an Orc 02-09-07, 05:55 PM	This argument is rather disingenuous - why would a character with an XP penalty use less resources per module played? Is there a Monster Penalty as well - 40% less creatures to go along with your 40% penalty? In the end, it is painful on both ends - you level slower AND you're in the hole gold wise. Because a character who knows he's getting less gold should spend less. If you were making $100K a year and are now making $60K, do you go out and spend the same amount of money as you used to? No one is forcing you to use consumables at the same rate you used to - you might feel like you have to do so, but that's you getting your character in trouble long-term. (edit: and just to note - leveling slower is a penalty in your head - yes, you might like to level faster, but being lower level isn't a penalty at a lower level table...)
Mixmaster15 02-09-07, 06:18 PM	The module in question is an active Core mod. So Britt, you have not addressed this. I have a character that did that good deed and now has a 20% XP and GP penalty. Any possibility on rectifying that and was this mod brought to your attention when discussing the GP penalty. Please advise. Oh, and BTW: You've done good Circle. And Britt?? Your communication on the issues makes the review period a two-way communication. I bow down to you, sir.
Britt 02-09-07, 06:20 PM	I know of the mod. It's been discussed and has nothing to do with the LGCS, so I'm not discussing it here. If you need clarification on whether the class is supposed to be a favored class, as has been hinted by some, email Creighton.
Mixmaster15 02-09-07, 06:28 PM	I know of the mod. It's been discussed and has nothing to do with the LGCS, so I'm not discussing it here. If you need clarification on whether the class is supposed to be a favored class, as has been hinted by some, email Creighton. Now that's fast. I will email Creighton and I appreciate the reply. Like I said before: Your communication on the issues makes the review period a two-way communication. I bow down AGAIN to you, sir.