Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Abominable Darkling 11-09-05, 10:27 AM	If you have more than one character class, you take a 20% XP penalty for each class after the first. For example, a character with four classes would take a 60% XP penalty. When counting your number of classes, ignore your race's favoured class and your first prestige class. For example, an elf Ftr/Wiz/Arcane Archer would effectively have only one class and would therefore not take a penalty. What do you think?
Tiran 11-09-05, 01:41 PM	Uhh PrC's don't count anyway, and I fail to see how this is different than the regular rule.
jagggar 11-09-05, 02:08 PM	Normally you can avoid the penalty as long as all of your classes are within one level of each other (ignoring favored class). (A dwarven fighter 5/cleric 2/rogue2 wouldn't normally get an XP penalty.)
The Abominable Darkling 11-09-05, 04:46 PM	Uhh PrC's don't count anyway, and I fail to see how this is different than the regular rule. I'm sorely tempted to say something nasty to you, but I'll refrain. The current rule doesn't care how many classes you have. It only cares if they are balanced. That is, if they are all within one level of each other. Thus, a Ftr2/Clr3/Rog2 wouldn't get any XP penalty. (Under my system that would merit a 40% penalty). When determining whether your classes are balanced, you ignore your race's favoured class under the current system. Thus, as jaggar pointed out, a dwarf Ftr5/Clr2/Rog2 would not get an XP penalty. (Under my system that would merit a 20% penalty). Finally, the current system ignores all your prestige classes. My system only allows you to ignore one of them.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-09-05, 05:05 PM	And the goal of this would be?
The Abominable Darkling 11-09-05, 05:51 PM	The purpose is simply to make XP penalties a meaningful restriction on multiclassing. As it is, they are easily circumvented and effectively meaningless.
loaba 11-09-05, 06:29 PM	Ugh, well, I disagree? Yeah, I think I do. The current multiclass penalties make it more attractive to either balance your class-load evenly, in the spirit of traditional multi-classing, or you can take a favored class and at random time tack on a secondary class (or two), or you can always add in your races favored class at any time. What you would be doing with this rule is really just hurting Half-elves anyway. So I have to ask, what is your reasoning behind this? Do you feel like multiple classes are some kind of detriment?
der_gogo 11-09-05, 06:39 PM	Hm, okay, so Human can't multiclass efficient any more without using a Prc, most other classes (except Half-Elves, who are even more useless now) just don't care because they usually multiclass in their favotie class anyway...
Tenzhi 11-09-05, 11:18 PM	Hm, okay, so Human can't multiclass efficient any more without using a Prc, most other classes (except Half-Elves, who are even more useless now) just don't care because they usually multiclass in their favotie class anyway... Actually, humans still multiclass with more versatility than anyone else given that their favoured class is "any."
loaba 11-09-05, 11:26 PM	It's my understanding that the OP is simply penalizing any player who multiclasses, whether they keep it even or not (or observe any of the other multiclassing rules).
weasel fierce 11-10-05, 02:24 AM	If the goal is to reduce multiclassing, I'd go with the simpler answer, and either limit it to 2 classes or flat out pretend it doesnt exist.
Tiran 11-10-05, 07:36 AM	I'm sorely tempted to say something nasty to you, but I'll refrain. The current rule doesn't care how many classes you have. It only cares if they are balanced. That is, if they are all within one level of each other. Thus, a Ftr2/Clr3/Rog2 wouldn't get any XP penalty. (Under my system that would merit a 40% penalty). When determining whether your classes are balanced, you ignore your race's favoured class under the current system. Thus, as jaggar pointed out, a dwarf Ftr5/Clr2/Rog2 would not get an XP penalty. (Under my system that would merit a 20% penalty). Finally, the current system ignores all your prestige classes. My system only allows you to ignore one of them. No need to say anything nasty, I just wasn't getting it. So its a more severe penalty.
Millennium 11-10-05, 10:52 AM	The purpose is simply to make XP penalties a meaningful restriction on multiclassing. As it is, they are easily circumvented and effectively meaningless. And this has caused problems in your game... how? Have you playtested your rule to make sure it doesn't cause problems of its own?
The Abominable Darkling 11-10-05, 12:06 PM	I'm a little surprised at your reactions to this. This is not something I'm planning to punish my players--that's why it's here and not on the DM board. The idea is to discourage heavily multiclassed characters without outright banning them. I presume that this was the original intent behind the XP penalty rules. Obviously, they fail to accomplish this. I doubt my rule would have any effect at all on most D&D games. In my experience, it is rare for a player to take more than two classes and rarer still for one to take more than three. Nevertheless, a quick perusal of the character optimization boards shows that the most broken builds almost always heavily multiclass. In particular, they often take multiple prestige classes. In case you're wondering, my current game has a human druid, an elf rogue, a human wizard, a human fighter/monk, an aasimar sorcerer/paladin, a human ranger/healer, and a human fighter. As you case see, were I to institute this rule in my game, no one would even notice. I have not tested this out in a game. I posted it here in the hopes of eliciting some thoughtful feedback.
loaba 11-10-05, 12:19 PM	So it's not a problem in your game, but you're afraid it will become one? I guess I'm not seeing the logic here. If multiple PrC's are a concern to ya, tell your players they have to finish what they start (but PrC's still should not count for XP penalties). As to the standard classes and multi-classing, I think the rules address them just fine.
Millennium 11-10-05, 02:17 PM	I'm a little surprised at your reactions to this. This is not something I'm planning to punish my players--that's why it's here and not on the DM board. The idea is to discourage heavily multiclassed characters without outright banning them. I presume that this was the original intent behind the XP penalty rules. Obviously, they fail to accomplish this. How is it so "obvious" to you if you've never actually had a problem in your games? I have not tested this out in a game. I posted it here in the hopes of eliciting some thoughtful feedback. It seems to me that you've gotten it, even if it's been poorly worded by some (myself included, I admit): it's a solution in search of a problem that you can't be sure even exists. People don't like it because they don't see a need for it. The CO boards involve heavily-multiclassed characters, but CO is just that: optimization for combat to an unrealistic degree. Most players, as you've already observed, do not bother with that sort of thing. Your own players don't do it either. If you slip a house-rule in and nobody objects, that's fine. If you slip a house-rule in and nobody even notices, that's just gratuitous house-ruling.
The Abominable Darkling 11-10-05, 02:57 PM	Alright, one last try: First: I am NOT looking for help with my game. Now, let me elaborate on my original query: Do you think this rule will effectively limit abusive multiclassing? Why or why not? Is an XP penalty even an effective or appropriate means to penalize such builds? Why or why not? Do you think this rule unfairly penalizes players who do not abuse multiclassing? Why or why not? Do you see any subtle ramifications of this rule? As a player, would you object to this rule? Why or why not? Is this rule more or less effective than the original rule? Why? Do think think this rule better reflects the intent of the original rule? Why or why not? Am I correct about the design intent behind the original rule? If not, what is the design intent behind the original rule?
Tyler Do'Urden 11-10-05, 04:39 PM	I think it's a little excessive and that you'd get better results if you just strongly encourage single-classed characters. If you come off as reasonable, mature players generally don't mind doing what you ask. Yours is a lot simpler, though. I'll give you that.
JStegmaier 11-10-05, 05:58 PM	Do you think this rule will effectively limit abusive multiclassing? Why or why not? Of course, as it effectively limits any multiclassing outside of favored classes. Is an XP penalty even an effective or appropriate means to penalize such builds? Why or why not? I think it is effective; I'm not sure it's appropriate. I think there are better ways. Most optimized builds aren't picking up three base classes; most are based on picking up a level, or maybe two, of several prestige classes. A better rule to accomplish this may be limiting how often you can take a prestige class--say, only after taking at least 5 levels of your previous prestige class, or only after at least half the maximum level of the prestige class has been taken (or, more harshly, disallow all prestige classes or only allow prestige classes on a case-by-case basis.) Do you think this rule unfairly penalizes players who do not abuse multiclassing? Why or why not? Indeed I do. Let's say I want to play a gnome illusionist/cleric (of a god of trickery or some such.) Right off the bat, even if I level them as equally as possible, I'm paying a 20% XP penalty, and I don't think that's an abusive concept in the least. A half-orc fighter/sorcerer (another one I've played) would likewise be penalized, even worse if he took spellsword, finished it, then moved into eldritch knight. There are tons of perfectly reasonable, roleplayable and neat builds that are punished by this rule. Do you see any subtle ramifications of this rule? Not really any subtle ones, no. As a player, would you object to this rule? Why or why not? I would never implement it as a DM. If a DM I had played under and liked before implemented it, I would probably object and explain what I disliked about it. If a DM I had never played under had this as a house rule, I wouldn't bother playing in his campaign. Is this rule more or less effective than the original rule? Why? It's more effective at discouraging multiclassing altogether, so obviously it will be more effective as discouraging "abusive" multiclassing. Do think think this rule better reflects the intent of the original rule? Why or why not? Absolutely not, based on what I see the RAW meaning. I don't think the original rule is there to discourage multiclassing. It's there to make sure if you do multiclass, you do so evenly, i.e., it's easier to learn multiple jobs if you advance in them all a little at a time, instead starting a completely new one after you've been entrenched in learning another. Am I correct about the design intent behind the original rule? If not, what is the design intent behind the original rule? Just answered that above. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 11-10-05, 06:41 PM	XP Penalties suck. They should not exist period. Either allow everything or put a limit to the number of classes one can have.
Sledged 11-10-05, 10:47 PM	XP Penalties suck. They should not exist period.I've been toying around with replacing XP penalties with forcing the characters to meet requirements to enter other base classes. The exceptions are that a character can take levels in its favored class without meeting requirements, and the character also does not have to meet the requirements of the first base class (not including its favored class) in which it takes levels. The only limitation is that I've yet to flesh out what the requirements are for each base class.
Tenzhi 11-10-05, 11:37 PM	Hard limits on number of classes/PrCs is a simpler way to get the result your looking for (IMO, three base classes and two PrCs should be the hard limit). But it depends on the players, really. Some people will balk more at XP penalties, while others will balk at hard limits on multi-classing.