So how does Multi-class penalties actually work?

[SinFroge]

Being a new player to the D&D world, I've come across something called " Multi-class penalties". My DM didn't use this system apparently and I just so happen to hear about it via internet. How does this actually work? Is it a supposed rule? Does it have actual numbers involved? Is there a book where I can read these rules if so? Any help would be appreciated.


Still a newbie [DND][/DND]

 

[Nagol]

Multiclass penalties are an experience point reduction for characters with multiple classes too far apart.

Page 60 of the PHB covers them.

In a nutshell, if your character has two or more classes

1) Strike off the favored class (as described under each race).
2) Strike off prestige classes (a clarification in the 3.5 FAQ that never had errata published for it)
3) For each remaining class, the character receives a 20% reduction in earned experience if the class levels are more than 1 level apart from other remaining classes.

So a 4/5 Fighter/Wizard doesn't have a penalty. A 4/6 Fighter/Wizard would get -20% xp unless the character was an Elf (Favored class Wizard), Dwarf (Favored class Fighter), or Human (Favored class is highest leveled class).

 

[Li Shenron]

Since your tag says 3.0/3.5 -> Player's Handbook, Classes chapter, last page

Basically an XP penalty for each class more than a level away from your top-level class (excluding your favored class).

If you're playing by the SRD instead of the books, if I remember right there are no multiclass penalties.

 

[Nagol]

Since your tag says 3.0/3.5 -> Player's Handbook, Classes chapter, last page

Basically an XP penalty for each class more than a level away from your top-level class (excluding your favored class).

If you're playing by the SRD instead of the books, if I remember right there are no multiclass penalties.

The SRD talks around the penalties -- I think it fell into the closed content of experience and leveling so favored classes mention their role in calculating penalties, but the SRD doesn't address the mechanics.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Also, honestly, this is probably one of the most commonly ignored rules. It only comes up in rare and odd situations and many people don't like it anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

Also, honestly, this is probably one of the most commonly ignored rules. It only comes up in rare and odd situations and many people don't like it anyway.

Yes.

To tell the whole thing, it's one of the most commonly ignored rules followed by complaints about how heavily multiclassed PC are broken.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Be glad your DM hasn't done multiclass penalties. Many useful and interesting (but not necessarily overpowered) builds require multiclassing that would normally screw your experience gains.

But yes, it does exist in the 3.0 and 3.5 rules and it's in the PHB. I think part of why it exists is in previous editions certain races were tied to certain classes, but in 3.X they made it so every race could be every base class. To "preserve" some sense of still keeping certain races to certain classes they used Favored Class for the races, and since they figured going around cherrypicking class features was overpowered they put in the XP penalty.

In practice, the XP penalty is worthless because several classes are quite powerful on their own without multiclassing (like clerics, druids, and wizards) but others like the fighter or paladin lag behind and often need to multiclass, or at least choose very specific feats and alternate class features, in order to even keep up if the casters are making good use of their spells and such. Some prestige classes even require multiclassing and thus an XP hit would really screw things up.

 

[delericho]

In a nutshell, if your character has two or more classes

1) Strike off the favored class (as described under each race).
2) Strike off prestige classes (a clarification in the 3.5 FAQ that never had errata published for it)
3) For each remaining class, the character receives a 20% reduction in earned experience if the class levels are more than 1 level apart from other remaining classes.

This. Also, as others have mentioned, it's one of the most-ignored rules, and for pretty good reason.

Yes.

To tell the whole thing, it's one of the most commonly ignored rules followed by complaints about how heavily multiclassed PC are broken.

Perhaps. But presumably the people complaining about multiclass PCs have never played a single-class Wizard, Cleric, or Druid.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes.

To tell the whole thing, it's one of the most commonly ignored rules followed by complaints about how heavily multiclassed PC are broken.

This. There were several important ideas that the rules were intended to ecapsulate. One was to discourage lots of class dipping to pick up front ended powers, while still allowing classes to be front ended so you could play the concept from level 1. Another was to provide a large advantage in flexibility to humans so that if you wanted to play something that did 'dip' in an odd way, human would be the preferred concept.

Other similar heavily ignored rules where people complain about the results:

Entry into PrCs was originally not supposed to be on the basis of mechanical value of the PrC, but only on the basis of in game play. PrC's access is supposed to be a reward for RP engagement with a particular setting, not a part of standard PC character creation. When that got invalidated, admittedly with WotC's encouragement when they started marketting PrC's to players, just about the last good justification for PrC's went away.

Cross class skills. Throwing this out tends to tie into easy access to multiple PrCs to bring the brokeness faster. Throw out the multiclassing penalties as well and PrCs with complex requirements just get that much more broken.

Even without dropping the rules, the PrC/Multiclassing nonsense was probably the biggest thing that drove me from 3.5. They took a relatively easy problem and replaced it with tons of harder problems. Fundamentally, the throwing out of multiclassing penalties, cross class skills, and lots of other rules seems to be motivated by the desire to break Celebrim's 1st Law of RPGs: "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

The whole justification for all this tends to be, "Well, Wizards/Clerics/Druids are OP."

Ok, sure, the 1st tier classes do break the 1st Law, especially when optimized. But, instead of fixing that, why create all this elaborate rules scaffolding which ultimately not only doesn't fix the problem - Wizards/Clerics/Druids are still OP - but often leads to hideous caster brokenness as well - "You mean I can keep my full caster spell progression and get the equivalent of a bonus feat every level and [do some broken thing with DCs/Metamagic/caster level] too? Sold." Why is the solution to the OP nature of Wizards/Clerics/Druids, "Let's just make everything OP." I mean, I know why WoTC took short term profits over long term success and health of the 3.X system by encouraging that sort of outlook through the splatbooks, I just don't understand why DMs and players put up with it.

If you add to that the 'magic wal-mart' issues resulting from making all wealth fully fungible, you basically have the CharOP boards.