Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MrMorden 06-09-05, 11:56 AM	I have recently become aware of the 20% XP hit for players that multiclass outside of the "favored" class for their race, when they don't keep each of their classes within 1 level of each other. Is this just a throwback to the older versions of AD&D/D&D, where XP had to be split evenly among multiple classes? Can somebody point out some game balance benefit to this rule? My inclination is to axe this rule in my game, but I want to make sure I'm not missing any balancing issues in doing so. Thanks!
Marcus Majarra 06-09-05, 12:00 PM	The rule discourages level-dipping, i.e. taking 1-2 levels in different classes in addition to your main class. The XP penalty allows humans and half-elves to develop their main class and enjoy the benefits of the low levels of other classes without penalty. It's their compensation for not enjoying any particular racial benefits (notably the ability score modifiers).
Bruunwald 06-09-05, 12:08 PM	I have recently become aware of the 20% XP hit for players that multiclass outside of the "favored" class for their race, when they don't keep each of their classes within 1 level of each other. Is this just a throwback to the older versions of AD&D/D&D, where XP had to be split evenly among multiple classes? Can somebody point out some game balance benefit to this rule? My inclination is to axe this rule in my game, but I want to make sure I'm not missing any balancing issues in doing so. Thanks! I have axed it. Long ago. Mainly because I don't believe in it. I didn't suddenly suck at the guitar because I got a job at Round Table, for crying out loud. By the way, it has yet to, in any way, whatsoever, in a million years at all, because it never could, unbalance my game to not use this menace of a rule.
Talhar 06-09-05, 12:10 PM	Axeing the rule severly underpowers humans and half-elves, you know.
High Octane 06-09-05, 12:13 PM	Removing this ability will pretty much cause everyone to not want to play humans or half-elves since one of their drawing points is the favored class: Any. This rule also encourages certain races to be certain classes, even encouraging certain classes to dip in their favored class.
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 06-09-05, 12:25 PM	I play with the 20% rule, because it more accurately simulates real-life...You don't suddenly become inept at something when you learn something new, but you would need to work at both in order to keep improving. And improving one beyond the other takes even more work. IMHO, the 20% hit is to discourage people from dipping in levels to gain a specific benefit and then dropping the advancement of that class. (Example: Take a level in Ranger to improve your TWF and then advance in Rogue or Fighter forever after). And as also previously stated, you are nerfing humans and half-elves by doing this. I would let it stay, it helps to keep powergaming and munchkin-ism at bay, and with my players, I need every tool I can get. :smirk:
Thoronmir 06-09-05, 12:32 PM	I’ve always viewed the rule as a mechanism designed to inhibit level-dipping. Under the RAW, every race is, essentially, entitled to level dip once without penalty. Of course that assumes that one of those classes is the race’s favored class. So, the XP penalty is really intended to penalize the PC’s third class. The Elven Wizard/Fighter, the Dwarven Fighter/Cleric, etc., suffer no penalties. But the Elven Wizard/Fighter/Rogue and Dwarven Fighter/Cleric/Monk do. I have no problems accepting that concept that, with that third class, it becomes more difficult to remain focused on advancement. If you think that a PC ought to be allowed three classes of disparate levels with no penalty, then we simply disagree. The “problem” arises when PCs who are not Humans or Half-Elves opt not to take their race’s favored class. So, it seems to me that the objection centers more on the favored class issue rather than the XP penalty. You can do away with favored classes, but you eliminate one of the few game mechanics reasons to play either Humans or Half-Elves … their racial characteristic is versatility. I like to play Humans. I wouldn’t play in a campaign that eliminated either the XP penalty or favored classes unless the DM compensated Humans and Half-Elves somehow.
Bruunwald 06-09-05, 12:57 PM	Don't get me wrong, I like my players. But to say that not using the XP hit is to nerf humans and half-elves specifically because of ability score bonuses is to discount two important things: #1: The ability score bonuses by race are already balanced by ability penalties by race. #2: Every player somehow magically ends up with an 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10 character anyway, whatever their race or class. Either they weasel you, they cry like babies or they plain out-and-out cheat. But in any case, they manage to balance all the characters out with a high score in whatever ability they need. As for using it to make up for the ability to roll a Search check for passing near to a secret door, or some other such elvish or racial ability, I have yet to run a group who hates the elf for being good at finding them a secret door to go through (when the roll is even successful, which remember, it isn't always). "Jeez, Illithiolious, Grand Elf Poobah, I begrudge you the ability that led to you finding the hidden portal that allowed me to obtain my +5 holy sword of smiting everything in sight." No, I don't think so. Some of these rules may look fair and balanced on paper, but in practical use, some are just unnecessary. You want unbalanced? Half-ogres. That's unbalanced. That's a case for a 20% hit, without multiclassing them. And speaking of races, who decided what these racial favored classes would be? Let me tell you something: every elf in our game has been a ranger, no matter who played him. We haven't had an elf wizard in our game since 1996. Ranger should be the favored class of an elf, from where I'm sitting. They're supposed to be children of the forests, yes? They're fey. What does being a wizard have to do with being a fey? My other problem with these sorts of penalties (even though like most of you, I abide by most of them), is that D&D is a double-tax system. They tax you and then tax you again on the tax. For instance, you already can't buy as many ranks in a cross-class skill. Then you can only use the benefit of half of those. Here, the opposite of what I said earlier is the case. I am being told that I will forever suck at driving a car because I learned to play the guitar first. That's stupid, especially in a world where you're supposed to be playing a superhero. Clearly, the people at Wizards are underachievers, incapable of being good at more than one thing. Either that, or they just hate people who are. The XP hit is the same way. You get +2 to one thing, but you get -2 to another. Then you get hit with the 20% XP if you want something new in the long career of your character? It's against my politics to double-tax. It's too IRS. Finally, everybody I play with has breezed through the Forgotten Realms sourcebook. They can see that practically every single NPC in there "dips." If it's good enough for Drizzt, then it's good enough for my players. And before anybody says, "yeah, but Drizzt is a legendary character in the game," remember, your players want to be, too. That's how I feel about it, anyway. And like I said, it has yet to unbalance my game and I have yet to hear a single complaint, even from those playing humans. Think about it this way: when your player dips his character to get a benefit from another class, he's already sacrificing advancement in his stronger class. He's likely taking a hit to his hit points, he's likely taking a hit to his attack rolls. And if he's just improving them, then he's already behind, and what does it matter?
Derren S. 06-09-05, 01:14 PM	I have axed it. Long ago. Mainly because I don't believe in it. I didn't suddenly suck at the guitar because I got a job at Round Table, for crying out loud. And are you as good with the guitar as when you instead of working trained playing it?
hazel monday 06-09-05, 01:20 PM	just ditch the xp penalty. most people who are in favor of keeping it are trying to prevent power gaming. this is a fine goal, but i personally like a little powergaming among my players because it helps them survive from session to session. it's hard to roleplay characters well when they die and you keep having to make new ones. as far as humans losing their advantages, the extra feat and skill bonuses still make humans the most formidable race to play.
Bruunwald 06-09-05, 01:22 PM	And are you as good with the guitar as when you instead of working trained playing it? Yes, actually. There's such a thing as talent. Then there's skill. Now I buy computers for a major University (the Round Table job was decades ago). I don't suck at either the buying job or the playing the guitar thing just because I do both. I also still make a pretty freakin' decent pizza. I can become out of practice when I don't play for awhile. But talent does not go away. Only skill fades. And skill can be regained, without losing skill in other things. Let me ask you, what do your characters have to do, but to be good at the things they do? And how can you imagine that somebody whose life is protected every single day by his skill would suddenly be lousy in it? If you had to lift a shield to protect yourself from a howling ogre, believe me, you'd soon become good at lifting shields. I agree that you aren't great at things at first, even when you have talent for them. That's why the class tables start you out low. But to further tax this with XP hits, is again, more double taxing. You have to ask at what point it's balanced in your game. Does anybody notice it in mine? Nope.
Vyvyan Basterd 06-09-05, 01:30 PM	The rule discourages level-dipping, i.e. taking 1-2 levels in different classes in addition to your main class. The XP penalty allows humans and half-elves to develop their main class and enjoy the benefits of the low levels of other classes without penalty. It's their compensation for not enjoying any particular racial benefits (notably the ability score modifiers). It doesn't discourage dipping if the character's main class is his favored class. An Elf Wizard 14/Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Ranger 2/Monk 2 suffers no penalties to XP, even though he has dipped into four more classes. I recently proposed a -10% penalty for each class beyond the character's favored class, first base class (or second if the first is his favored class), and first prestige class. Basically a -10% penalty for each class beyond the third (second if one of the classes isn't your favored class). This seems more realistic to me. As you try to take on more and more roles, your overall performance in each diminishes.
Thoronmir 06-09-05, 01:52 PM	Don't get me wrong, I like my players. But to say that not using the XP hit is to nerf humans and half-elves specifically because of ability score bonuses is to discount two important things: #1: The ability score bonuses by race are already balanced by ability penalties by race. #2: Every player somehow magically ends up with an 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10 character anyway, whatever their race or class. Either they weasel you, they cry like babies or they plain out-and-out cheat. But in any case, they manage to balance all the characters out with a high score in whatever ability they need.#1: Agreed. But Elves, etc., receive more racial characteristics than just Ability modifiers (see below). #2: That’s hardly a basis for indicting the RAW.As for using it to make up for the ability to roll a Search check for passing near to a secret door, or some other such elvish or racial ability, I have yet to run a group who hates the elf for being good at finding them a secret door to go through (when the roll is even successful, which remember, it isn't always). "Jeez, Illithiolious, Grand Elf Poobah, I begrudge you the ability that led to you finding the hidden portal that allowed me to obtain my +5 holy sword of smiting everything in sight." No, I don't think so. Some of these rules may look fair and balanced on paper, but in practical use, some are just unnecessary.It’s not about “hating” the Elf for what he can do … it’s about giving the Humans something that makes them “special” too. I wouldn’t expect the Elves and Dwarves to begrudge the Human for gaining an extra Feat. I, for one, haven’t suggested that eliminating the XP penalty should result in fewer racial abilities for non-Humans. All I said was to give the Humans something to compensate them. How could any player complain about that? If you decided to scrap the XP penalty and decided to allow Humans and Half-Elves to take a bonus feat, would the Elf and the Dwarf gripe about it?And speaking of races, who decided what these racial favored classes would be? Let me tell you something: every elf in our game has been a ranger, no matter who played him. We haven't had an elf wizard in our game since 1996. Ranger should be the favored class of an elf, from where I'm sitting. They're supposed to be children of the forests, yes? They're fey. What does being a wizard have to do with being a fey?If, in your world, Elves have a closer tie to nature than they do to magic, by all means, change their favored class. But that’s not the same as eliminating either favored classes or the XP penalty. Perhaps Dwarves are, as a people, so devout that Cleric is a better favored class for them than Fighter. But pick one favored class and stick with it.My other problem with these sorts of penalties (even though like most of you, I abide by most of them), is that D&D is a double-tax system. They tax you and then tax you again on the tax. For instance, you already can't buy as many ranks in a cross-class skill. Then you can only use the benefit of half of those. Here, the opposite of what I said earlier is the case. I am being told that I will forever suck at driving a car because I learned to play the guitar first. That's stupid, especially in a world where you're supposed to be playing a superhero. Clearly, the people at Wizards are underachievers, incapable of being good at more than one thing. Either that, or they just hate people who are.I think I get your point here (but it’s not really coherent). First, “Driving” is pretty much a “class skill” for everyone today, so your opportunity to improve is not really inhibited. Second, as for your guitar, assume that you were required to spend your time doing other things that prevented you from practicing. Don’t you think you’ll get a little “rusty” after a while? But the fallacy in your analogy is that real life “examples” do nothing to support your argument since you focus on “skills” rather than “classes.” The example is also moot because real life is not, to my knowledge, a “class-based” world (yes, it has social and economic classes, but c’mon, you all know what I mean). About the closest we have are “careers” … and, to that extent, I happen to be a real-life “multi-class” person. I have degrees in Engineering and Mathematics. I once actually used those degrees to earn a living. Many (many) years ago, I went to law school. I haven’t made much use of my earlier training since. My skills as an engineer have diminished as I’ve gained “levels” as a lawyer. I haven’t really “unlearned” my engineering and math knowledge but (a) it’s not as readily accessible as it once was and (b) I haven’t kept up with many of the recent developments in my former fields of expertise. Had I sought to retain all my previous skills, it would have detracted from my progression as a lawyer. Rather than attending legal seminars to learn about recent changes in the law, I would have had to invest that time in engineering training. This is why I have no problems accepting the 20% XP penalty … because I know that, in order to retain past knowledge and abilities, you must sacrifice progression in your new endeavor. So, here I am, Bob the Elven Wizard/Fighter and I decide that I want to add a level of Cleric. I could just focus exclusively on my new Clerical duties, but I know that my skills as a Wizard and Fighter would suffer … I would grow rusty, and I don’t want that to happen. So, in addition to learning how to deliver Last Rites, I must also spend a certain portion of my days practicing spells and swinging my sword. Because, only then do I avoid losing levels in my previous classes. The problem is that, all that time in the books and on the training field slows my progression as a Cleric … slows it by, perhaps, 20%? The XP hit is the same way. You get +2 to one thing, but you get -2 to another. Then you get hit with the 20% XP if you want something new in the long career of your character? It's against my politics to double-tax. It's too IRS.Again, if you think so, then house-rule it out. But compensate Humans and Half-Elves. Personally, I’d gladly share my Human’s versatility with the other races in exchange for some Darkvision.Finally, everybody I play with has breezed through the Forgotten Realms sourcebook. They can see that practically every single NPC in there "dips." If it's good enough for Drizzt, then it's good enough for my players. And before anybody says, "yeah, but Drizzt is a legendary character in the game," remember, your players want to be, too.And they can do it … but it costs them something.
MrMorden 06-09-05, 01:53 PM	Thanks guys...I appreciate you all weighing in on this rule. I think I've decided to apply the 20% rule only to the third and higher multiple class. This will keep folks from class dipping unnecessarily, while still allowing PCs to expand their characters horizons without whacking them for it. Now a related question: Does the 20% rule apply to prestige classes? I have not seen anything to indicate that this is the case, and it doesn't seen like a good idea.
Thoronmir 06-09-05, 02:17 PM	Thanks guys...I appreciate you all weighing in on this rule. I think I've decided to apply the 20% rule only to the third and higher multiple class. This will keep folks from class dipping unnecessarily, while still allowing PCs to expand their characters horizons without whacking them for it.Again, I hope you're compensating Humans and Half-Elves accordingly.Now a related question: Does the 20% rule apply to prestige classes? I have not seen anything to indicate that this is the case, and it doesn't seen like a good idea.I can't quote RAW for you on this, but no one I know applies the 20% rule to PrCs.
Derren S. 06-09-05, 02:19 PM	Yes, actually. There's such a thing as talent. Then there's skill. Now I buy computers for a major University (the Round Table job was decades ago). I don't suck at either the buying job or the playing the guitar thing just because I do both. I also still make a pretty freakin' decent pizza. I can become out of practice when I don't play for awhile. But talent does not go away. Only skill fades. And skill can be regained, without losing skill in other things. Let me ask you, what do your characters have to do, but to be good at the things they do? And how can you imagine that somebody whose life is protected every single day by his skill would suddenly be lousy in it? If you had to lift a shield to protect yourself from a howling ogre, believe me, you'd soon become good at lifting shields. I agree that you aren't great at things at first, even when you have talent for them. That's why the class tables start you out low. But to further tax this with XP hits, is again, more double taxing. You have to ask at what point it's balanced in your game. Does anybody notice it in mine? Nope. May I ask if you just play for fun (more likely imo) or if you play guitar to earn a living? Adventurers don't do the things they do as hobby. They are highly trained specialists who can never allow themself to become out of practice. Becoming out of practice -> XP loss. If you didn't work, could you play the guitar better than now? If you don't play could be better at your job? Yes to both, because without one, you can spend more time training the other.
MrMorden 06-09-05, 02:44 PM	Again, I hope you're compensating Humans and Half-Elves accordingly.I can't quote RAW for you on this, but no one I know applies the 20% rule to PrCs. I'm compensating them accordingly...I give them an extra feat to start and additional skill points. :ayyyy!: Joking aside, I have a good group and my players generally choose races based on what they want to play, not on the sheer numbers. I've talked about this with my players and they all agree (yes, even the humans) that there is no major disadvantage to humans by tossing the rule for the first multiclass.
clarkvalentine 06-09-05, 02:49 PM	Again, I hope you're compensating Humans and Half-Elves accordingly. I disagree that it's a benefit to an individual character - it enforces Greyhawk setting conventions, that's all. It's designed to reenforce the setting convention of Humans and Halfelves being the paragons of variabliity. It simply makes Humans and Half-Elves more felxible, not more powerful. WIth this rule, you're more likely to have Elves with wizard levels, Dwarves with fighter levels, etc. - that's all it enforces. A Human fighter/wizard isn't necessarily more powerful than an Elf fighter/wizard.
Thuragrun 06-09-05, 03:10 PM	I got rid of the xp penalty but also do not allow level dipping. IMC, a character may have up to two core classes and one PrC.
Snommelp 06-09-05, 03:27 PM	As is the case with a lot of these questions, it all depends on who you are playing with. My group got rid of the multiclass penalty our first game, but then nobody in our group has ever had a character with more than two classes anyway. Most of the time we just do one class characters or characters with one core class and one prestige class.
codemartin 06-09-05, 05:05 PM	And speaking of races, who decided what these racial favored classes would be? Let me tell you something: every elf in our game has been a ranger, no matter who played him. We haven't had an elf wizard in our game since 1996. Ranger should be the favored class of an elf, from where I'm sitting. They're supposed to be children of the forests, yes? They're fey. What does being a wizard have to do with being a fey? Just to let you know elfs are not fey. fey are seprate race, with a la of 1 or 2 depending if your feytouched or half fey respectavly. as dm my house rule is that you can pick your favored class because pc are unquie. aanyway my other house rule is if we buy a non-core set say psonics are orential adventures i let the first class be so you dont take a 20% pentaly because the class did not exist until i either bought the book or looked it up.
Duroton 06-09-05, 05:07 PM	To be honest, in our campaign, we don't even remember that rule, infact, I forgot that rule until I read this. Admittadly, it does cause some problems, for example, Should I make my Human Fighter 2, StoneBlessed 3, WarSmith 1 take a hit? She already took a hit: 3 levels of stone blessed, when she could be getting some more feats. I would argue that some prestige classes should be immune, like, as previously mentioned, the stone blessed.
Wayne 06-09-05, 05:18 PM	Prestige classes aren't included in the XP penalty rule-- it's in the main FAQ, since apparently folks forgot to put it in the 3.5 books. *chuckles* The problem with this rule isn't so much the XP penalty-- to an extent, it's understandable; even if I don't use it. The problem is that it plays on "Favored Classes"-- which is idiotic, unrealistic, and nonsensical. Think about it-- if an Elf spends his decades of childhood playing with swords and bows, he's going to grow up to be a smashing Fighter. But then he wants to help scout for his kingdom-- but he can't dip into Ranger, because that would give him an XP penalty! But if he suddenly switched completely over to Wizard, though, that'd be just fine. :rolleyes: If you want to more or less accurately simulate the bonus to being "adaptable" that Humans, Half-Elves, and some other new races get; let them never take XP penalties by multiclassing, and give every other race Favored Class: Any. After all, what you're good at is up to you, not your race. Personally, though, I'd say to just junk the entire thing. 3E D&D is a level-based game, not a class-based one anymore. Trying to restrict free level-taking when that's precisely how you realize character concepts is just dumb and counterintuitive. And no, balance-wise it doesn't change anything. Half-Elves still suck because their bonuses are weak and minor, and humans still rock because the ability: Whatever the Heck Bonus Feat You Want is just so useful.
Karelzarath 06-09-05, 06:01 PM	I can't quote RAW for you on this, but no one I know applies the 20% rule to PrCs. That's because you're not supposed to. From the opening paragraph of the SRD doc Prestige Classes: "Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing."
Nom 06-10-05, 12:04 AM	I like to play Humans. I wouldn’t play in a campaign that eliminated either the XP penalty or favored classes unless the DM compensated Humans and Half-Elves somehow.Using standard point-buy, the racial mods work out to (at least) +2 points (14->16 is 4 points, 14->12 is 2). Awarding humans and half-elves +2 point-buy points is a roughly balanced pay-off for losing the ability to easily level dip, and is roughly equivalent to racial ability mods. #2: Every player somehow magically ends up with an 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10 character anyway, whatever their race or class. Either they weasel you, they cry like babies or they plain out-and-out cheat. But in any case, they manage to balance all the characters out with a high score in whatever ability they need.The game is balanced on elite array / 25 point buy. Just give them 25 points and walk away, and you'll never need to worry about 18,16,14,12,11,10, nor will they have any basis for whining or weaseling. Note that if you use a greater than 25 point buy you will need to provide humans and half-elves with correspondingly more points as compensating. If everyone has easy access to 16s then a racial ability mod is worth 4 points rather than 2. Under 25 point buy, a single 16 means you only have 15 points for the other 5 scores, which is a notable penalty in itself. This rule also encourages certain races to be certain classes, even encouraging certain classes to dip in their favored class.More accurately, it encourages certain races to only dip in certain classes. Unless you're a human or half-elf, you either need a balanced multiclass or only dip into or from your favoured class. Whether this is a good thing is debatable. 3rd Ed multiclassing is way more flexible than previous editions, but the rules still encourage balanced levels. As for PrCs, I actually have house rules on them and multiclassing. Most PrCs are a natural continuation and specialisation of one (or more) of a PC's base classes. In such a case, the PrC levels count as levels in the base class/es for determining multiclass penalties. eg A Ftr3/Wiz2/Rog1/Eldritch Knight 4 would be treated as Ftr7/Wiz6/Rog1 for multiclass XP penalty purposes.
Chobemaster 06-10-05, 04:58 PM	Apart from the mechanics of discouraging meta-game double-dipping and balancing the races, it acts on the population of the gameworld as a whole to create the general class distributions that make up the nature of the races. Since it's smarter for Dwarves to multi-class including fighter, then most multiclassed Dwarves in the gamewould will include a fighter component...Dwarves are INTENDED to have a preponderance of fighters. That's the same reason that the old edition allowable multi-class combos existed. The new rule allows your PC to be different while still preserving the core nature of the race at large.
DDogwood 06-10-05, 05:48 PM	Yes, actually. There's such a thing as talent. Then there's skill. Now I buy computers for a major University (the Round Table job was decades ago). I don't suck at either the buying job or the playing the guitar thing just because I do both. I also still make a pretty freakin' decent pizza. That only tells us that you've got good ranks in Profession: Buyer, Perform: Guitar, and Craft: Pizza. Did you take Perform as a cross-class skill, or did you take Bard or Rogue levels? Seriously, though, we are all humans, which means we can't understand the racial inclinations of the demi-human races. See, if you or I were to start life as a Wizard, and later decided to learn some Rogue skills, we could. We simply can't appreciate the subtleties of the Dwarven psyche which prevent a Dwarf from doing the same thing. Essentially, the Favoured Class rule states that non-Human classes can't easily switch between a variety of careers, because they have such strong natural inclinations towards their Favoured Classes. Every Dwarf finds it easier to be a Fighter than anything else. A Dwarf may happen to become a Paladin or a Druid, or perhaps even both, but after he has pursued his chosen path for a few levels, he finds it extremely difficult to develop the skills to be a Bard.
SeidonVanDolf 06-14-05, 03:04 PM	The purpose for the rule is simple: It takes more concentration to be multiple classes at once. For a fighter to pick up sorcerer would be a bit difficult. They have to maintain the use of their fighter skills all the while remembering the ways of the sorcerer and developing them both. Then they become a rogue as well and now they are juggling three completely different professions. That is the jist anyway. A human and a half-elf are more adept at comprimise while an elf would have been better suited as a wizard as most of his people are wizards.
Vyvyan Basterd 06-15-05, 08:43 AM	The purpose for the rule is simple: It takes more concentration to be multiple classes at once. For a fighter to pick up sorcerer would be a bit difficult. They have to maintain the use of their fighter skills all the while remembering the ways of the sorcerer and developing them both. Then they become a rogue as well and now they are juggling three completely different professions. That is the jist anyway. A human and a half-elf are more adept at comprimise while an elf would have been better suited as a wizard as most of his people are wizards. But this isn't true. Any race can be a Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1/PrCA1/PrCB1/ad infinitum without any XP penalty. But a halfling Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr3 suffers a 100% XP penalty and can no longer advance after 8th level. The rule doesn't punish those who take lots of classes. It punishes those who have non-favored classes more than one level apart. Even a halfling Ftr1/Wiz3 begins suffering a 20% XP penalty and he only has two classes. I think the rule SHOULD be based on number of classes, but currently as written it is not.
prettyripples 06-15-05, 08:45 AM	a halfling Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr3 suffers a 100% XP penalty Actually, I think this is still just 20%. It never gets worse.
Always-Late 06-15-05, 09:00 AM	Yeah, but Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1/PrCA1/PrCB1/ad infinitum always suck. It's just stupid.
High Octane 06-15-05, 09:18 AM	The thing about D&D is that the rules are easy to manipulate and take advantage of. Thats why it only works if there is a responsible DM. Any broken rule or concept, wherever written, is the fault of the DM. Its his job to say yes or no, and his word is final.
Burgundy Lotus 06-15-05, 09:18 AM	Actually, I think this is still just 20%. It never gets worse. correct. It's either 0% or 20% it does not stack.
Nom 06-15-05, 10:21 AM	correct. It's either 0% or 20% it does not stack.Check PH pg 60, top of the second column, and get back to us. :)
prettyripples 06-15-05, 10:27 AM	Sorry Nom, my mistake. It's never been an issue for me... ::considers blaming WotC for putting it at the top of a new column, where he wouldn't see it. Decides that makes him sound blind. Shuts up::
Taim Kelrathos 06-15-05, 10:36 AM	I, for one, have axed the 20% XP penalty for multi-classing. But I also won't let my players cross class except during 1) Character creation, in which case they can go between their classes when leveling up; 2)In game time spent training with someone else of the class or at an institution. My group tries to keep a good focus on Role Playing, so there's no good reason why someone would suddenly gain insight into another class unless trained or Wished into it. If they want to multiclass at creation they have to have it written into their character bio, which I award XP for writing.
Dracael 06-15-05, 10:37 AM	I've never felt the need for the Favored Classes or 20% penalty. Like many others have said, its not particularly realistic. Though I imagine that certain races will be more inclined to pursue certain classes, it is impossible to believe that they are incapable of pursuing others - even mutliclassing in ill-favored classes. Most of these races have their own complete societies. There should be as much variability in classes in an elven society as in a human society. Not to mention that Favored Class doesn't have to be accompanied by an XP penalty. Considering it's an RPG, I think most people will be inclined to play classes that logically suit whatever race. How many people are going to play a dwarven rogue? There's no reason to play a dwarven rogue unless you are doing so for roleplay purposes, in which case it isn't a problem. The main issue for me is eliminating Favored Class: Any for the Human and Half-elf, and finding them more suitable bonuses.
Alynn 06-15-05, 11:09 AM	I use it... although it has never been needed... I only have one multiclasser in the whole group, (for now, I think my wife is going to take 2 fighter levels to boost her BaB enough to take Archane Archer after level 10) Statisticly he is the weakest character, Ro2/Ba1/Dr1 so at level four he has a whopping +1 BaB limited spells selection... Although he is very versitle... (He's going for what will be called a Boccobian Bladeslinger, which is a new name for a PrC Fochlucan Lyrist to fit my world (which I guess I should buy the CA). But he has to multiclass tons to get it... He decided to take the power hit, so while the rest of the party grows stronger around him, he stays about the same (just tons more versitle). So instead of looking at this as skills, think of it as jobs... If I concentrate on being a programmer, and learn everything there is to know about programming, I will be a hell of a programmer, I also learn about running servers, net administrator, because sometimes I program for network admin stuff... I'm now a Pro5/NetA1. Well now I wanna run routers Pro5/NetA1/Rou1. If I keep doing this, its going to be harder for me to keep it all straight (Ok yeah so I do know how to do all this, I also know tech support and all that), but as I work on the other 2 jobs, I forget a thing or two about programming. Eventually it will be hard for my mind to keep it all straight, and will be harder for me to maintain my abilities in all those jobs... I think the 20% works fine....
kaldrin 06-15-05, 11:15 AM	We've got a house rule to ignore that penalty. We also give humans +1 to any attribute because the other races suffer no penalties for multi-classing. It's a reasonable exchange for a rule that I've always really disliked.
Phrennzy 06-15-05, 12:32 PM	But this isn't true. Any race can be a Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1/PrCA1/PrCB1/ad infinitum without any XP penalty. That will be my next character.
Vyvyan Basterd 06-15-05, 01:51 PM	Never mind, others covered it...
Vyvyan Basterd 06-15-05, 02:02 PM	Yeah, but Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Drd1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1/PrCA1/PrCB1/ad infinitum always suck. It's just stupid. My point was that this short attention span monstrosity suffers no XP penalty for starting as many careers as he can and never commiting. But the odd halfling that wants to be a wizard with a level of fighter gets shafted. I proposed a penalty based on number of classes taken and lowered the % and received cries of outrage from my players that play at least three base and two prestige classes. (The fact that I proposed the idea instead of making it law must mean I'm getting soft after 23 years of DMing :( )
Jell_Moo 06-15-05, 02:26 PM	#1: Removing the XP penalty does not, in any way, make Humans less powerful, or less desirable as a player race. The extra skill point per level and the bonus feat is what makes them a great choice, not their multiclassing ability. #2: It also doesn't make Half-Elves suck. Half-Elves do that on their own. #3: The multiclass penalty rule is archaic and serves no actual purpose. There is nothing actually unbalanced about letting players multiclass freely. Try and make a heavilly multiclassed character that is more powerful than a single classed Druid. Or Cleric. How about a high level Wizard or Sorcerer. All the XP penalty does is limit options, and eliminate valid archetypes. If somebody wanted to play a Woodsy Eleven Swashbuckler, a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger might be perfect. However, unless he does it exceptionally carefully, he has to eat a multiclass penalty. How about a Half-Orc Thugish Fighter. A few levels of Rogue would make such a character work, but oh no, an XP penalty! If free multiclassing doesn't make overpowered characters, and allows players to freely make valid and flavorful archetypes, why the XP penalty?
Chimaera2000 06-15-05, 04:09 PM	Hypothetically, if multiclassing penalties were to be eliminated, what should be used to compensate humans and half-elves for their loss? I had a few ideas here, but I was wondering if anyone else had some suggestions. 1) Nothing, and they'll like it! 2) A free +2/+2 skill feat of their choice (Alertness, for example) 3) Choose one skill and make it permanently a class skill for you (the DM may disallow certain skills, such as Use Magic Device, is he/she feels so). 4) They're considered to have the effects of a feat such as Jack of All Trades (all skills may be used even if they normally require training) or Able Learner (all cross-class skills may be bought at one rank/level) Personally, I'm in favor of the Jack of All Trades angle, since it's not a tremendous benefit (not really worth a feat, IMO), yet it's still interesting and adds to the "versatility" flavor of the two races. Anyone have any other ideas or comments?
clarkvalentine 06-15-05, 07:52 PM	Hypothetically, if multiclassing penalties were to be eliminated, what should be used to compensate humans and half-elves for their loss? I disagree that there's a loss at all.
weasel fierce 06-15-05, 09:12 PM	Its WOTC's attempt to still maintain a semblance of a class based system. I'd be wary of throwing the rule out myself, but well, its your game. You bought the book, you decide how its played at your table.
Maerdash 06-15-05, 09:43 PM	#1: Removing the XP penalty does not, in any way, make Humans less powerful, or less desirable as a player race. The extra skill point per level and the bonus feat is what makes them a great choice, not their multiclassing ability. #2: It also doesn't make Half-Elves suck. Half-Elves do that on their own. #3: The multiclass penalty rule is archaic and serves no actual purpose. There is nothing actually unbalanced about letting players multiclass freely. Try and make a heavilly multiclassed character that is more powerful than a single classed Druid. Or Cleric. How about a high level Wizard or Sorcerer. All the XP penalty does is limit options, and eliminate valid archetypes. If somebody wanted to play a Woodsy Eleven Swashbuckler, a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger might be perfect. However, unless he does it exceptionally carefully, he has to eat a multiclass penalty. How about a Half-Orc Thugish Fighter. A few levels of Rogue would make such a character work, but oh no, an XP penalty! If free multiclassing doesn't make overpowered characters, and allows players to freely make valid and flavorful archetypes, why the XP penalty? You obviously haven't spent much time on the character opt boards, take a look at the Hulking Hurler, H.I.V.E., King of Smack, or the Dweomercheater then you'll see how heavily multiclassing can be broken even with the penalties for multiclassing take those away and you invite munchkins to rip your game to shreds. Originally posted by Thoronomir But the fallacy in your analogy is that real life “examples” do nothing to support your argument since you focus on “skills” rather than “classes.” The example is also moot because real life is not, to my knowledge, a “class-based” world (yes, it has social and economic classes, but c’mon, you all know what I mean). About the closest we have are “careers” … and, to that extent, I happen to be a real-life “multi-class” person. I have degrees in Engineering and Mathematics. I once actually used those degrees to earn a living. Many (many) years ago, I went to law school. I haven’t made much use of my earlier training since. My skills as an engineer have diminished as I’ve gained “levels” as a lawyer. I haven’t really “unlearned” my engineering and math knowledge but (a) it’s not as readily accessible as it once was and (b) I haven’t kept up with many of the recent developments in my former fields of expertise. Had I sought to retain all my previous skills, it would have detracted from my progression as a lawyer. Rather than attending legal seminars to learn about recent changes in the law, I would have had to invest that time in engineering training. This is why I have no problems accepting the 20% XP penalty … because I know that, in order to retain past knowledge and abilities, you must sacrifice progression in your new endeavor. So, here I am, Bob the Elven Wizard/Fighter and I decide that I want to add a level of Cleric. I could just focus exclusively on my new Clerical duties, but I know that my skills as a Wizard and Fighter would suffer … I would grow rusty, and I don’t want that to happen. So, in addition to learning how to deliver Last Rites, I must also spend a certain portion of my days practicing spells and swinging my sword. Because, only then do I avoid losing levels in my previous classes. The problem is that, all that time in the books and on the training field slows my progression as a Cleric … slows it by, perhaps, 20%? This is a gorgeous exercise in the use of logic in a debate, you know logic doesn't belong on these boards Thoronomir. :D
Jell_Moo 06-15-05, 10:44 PM	You obviously haven't spent much time on the character opt boards, take a look at the Hulking Hurler, H.I.V.E., King of Smack, or the Dweomercheater then you'll see how heavily multiclassing can be broken even with the penalties for multiclassing take those away and you invite munchkins to rip your game to shreds. Forgive me if I wasn't quite clear, but I was only talking about the multiclassing of core classes, the ones that will give an XP penalty. Since PrCs do not give an XP penalty I wasn't talking about them at all. I was merely addressing such things as a Ranger/Fighter/Rogue, or a Barbarian/Druid/Bard, or whatever. Only cases where the multiclassing penalty comes into play. The King of Smack is a single class build (at least it can be). The Hulking Hurler uses iffy mechanics and 2 PrCs. None of these address the issue of removing the multiclass penalty and it's side effects at all I'm afraid.
PlutoniumKnight 06-16-05, 12:36 AM	You obviously haven't spent much time on the character opt boards, take a look at the Hulking Hurler, H.I.V.E., King of Smack, or the Dweomercheater then you'll see how heavily multiclassing can be broken even with the penalties for multiclassing take those away and you invite munchkins to rip your game to shreds. Most of these builds don't have that much multiclassing, the dweomercheater is just a cleric5/divine disciple 5/ dweomerkeeper 10. That isn't much multiclassing is it. Most of the people there agree that heavy multiclassing isn't the path to having a optimized character, usually they suck.