D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 - Multiclass XP penalty -20% yay or nay?
- Thread starter Jon_Dahl
- Start date
BriarMonkey
First Post
I don't use XP penalties. They are just another nuisance. After all, isn't the aim of the game to have fun?
In my game based on a few factors such as race, where someone comes from and such each PC has a list of classes they can select and not receive an XP penalty. In some cases such as clerics for dwarves, they are required to perform a service for the church to demonstrate their dedication to that faith. In addition to these normal mechanics, there are also a few magicial features that allow a class to be added to this list. A good example of this is a certain magical pool has this as one of the possible effects from it.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
I'm ok with the xp penalty BUT I hate how it works. By that I mean, especially with the non-core classes, it basically forces you to be human if you want to multiclass. There is no favored class (scout) or favored class (warblade) or whatever as far as I know. I also disagree with the assignments of many of the PHB races.
I think every race that doesn't get favored class (any) should have a LOOOOONG list of racially appropriate classes. IMO, cleric and rogue should be options for any race, since they are so fundamentally basic (Fighter, on the other hand, is not; for example I would give Elves Warblade, Swashbuckler, and so forth as melee class options but not the full plate tower and shield trained Fighter). A player picks one of them and treats that as his favored class. Favored class (any), instead of treating the highest leveled class as favored, would in turn treat whichever one as favored would be most beneficial. So a human fighter 5 / barbarian 4 / rogue 1 would be able to have rogue as favored class, not fighter, and avoid the xp penalty.
That's how I try to handle it. Haven't DMed in a while and most of my friends tend to play humans anyway so it actually seldom comes up.
I think every race that doesn't get favored class (any) should have a LOOOOONG list of racially appropriate classes. IMO, cleric and rogue should be options for any race, since they are so fundamentally basic (Fighter, on the other hand, is not; for example I would give Elves Warblade, Swashbuckler, and so forth as melee class options but not the full plate tower and shield trained Fighter). A player picks one of them and treats that as his favored class. Favored class (any), instead of treating the highest leveled class as favored, would in turn treat whichever one as favored would be most beneficial. So a human fighter 5 / barbarian 4 / rogue 1 would be able to have rogue as favored class, not fighter, and avoid the xp penalty.
That's how I try to handle it. Haven't DMed in a while and most of my friends tend to play humans anyway so it actually seldom comes up.
Andion Isurand
First Post
This is why I'm glad for the split between elves and eladrin, even though I never bought into 4e.
In 3.5, if you want a 'naturey' favored class... look to Wood and Wild elves.
Perhaps the 3.5 races could stand to have two or three favored classes that one must choose between, such as Favored Class: "Ranger, Scout or Wizard"
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
I am a RAW lover. I really dig the framework of 3.5's rules.
With that said, me and mine have one, count um, 1 houserule.
"Ignore the xp penalty for multiclassing."
Thing is, we want to reward the player for that single dip for that extra ability. We want to create non-cookie-cutter builds that can do creative things. We want to reward effective diversity. We want it to be possible for a player to build exactly that character he or she's got figured in his or her head, and the work that goes into doing so comes through roleplaying, spending gold wisely, being strategic with builds, creative use of in game skills and abilities, etc. The work does not come from your character having to sweat 20% more as much as somebody else who has decided to be less interesting in a fantasy game.
With that said, me and mine have one, count um, 1 houserule.
"Ignore the xp penalty for multiclassing."
Thing is, we want to reward the player for that single dip for that extra ability. We want to create non-cookie-cutter builds that can do creative things. We want to reward effective diversity. We want it to be possible for a player to build exactly that character he or she's got figured in his or her head, and the work that goes into doing so comes through roleplaying, spending gold wisely, being strategic with builds, creative use of in game skills and abilities, etc. The work does not come from your character having to sweat 20% more as much as somebody else who has decided to be less interesting in a fantasy game.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
Avoiding a penalty for a choice is different than being rewarded for the choice. I'm in the thought group that PF did favored classes better because it's an actual reward.
Plus, if you enforce the XP penalty you're essentially saying you don't like dips of any kind, even if the full package is a darn good concept. For instance, should a Swashbuckler 12/Rogue 4/Fighter 4 be penalized? Not in my eyes. Swashbucklers are already Fighter/Rogues in a way, but having the actual classes in there helps grant additional and very fitting abilities.
I disagree that Elves shouldn't have Fighter access. Part of that is because of the Hit-and-Run Fighter trading away heavy armor and tower shield proficiency for +2 Initiative and Dex to damage sometimes. It might be called "Drow Fighter" but anyone can pick up the changes.
If we're venturing into Dragon Mag territory, there's the Targeteer variant. It trades away almost all shield proficiencies for the ability to do Dex on ranged damage, among other things.
If you don't like dips, actually limit them. Don't give the player an XP penalty, because that just serves to make things difficult for the rest of the party when Mr. Multiclass is trailing behind.
Plus, if you enforce the XP penalty you're essentially saying you don't like dips of any kind, even if the full package is a darn good concept. For instance, should a Swashbuckler 12/Rogue 4/Fighter 4 be penalized? Not in my eyes. Swashbucklers are already Fighter/Rogues in a way, but having the actual classes in there helps grant additional and very fitting abilities.
I disagree that Elves shouldn't have Fighter access. Part of that is because of the Hit-and-Run Fighter trading away heavy armor and tower shield proficiency for +2 Initiative and Dex to damage sometimes. It might be called "Drow Fighter" but anyone can pick up the changes.
If we're venturing into Dragon Mag territory, there's the Targeteer variant. It trades away almost all shield proficiencies for the ability to do Dex on ranged damage, among other things.
If you don't like dips, actually limit them. Don't give the player an XP penalty, because that just serves to make things difficult for the rest of the party when Mr. Multiclass is trailing behind.
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
This also. Unbalancing character levels within the party is inconvenient.
frankthedm
First Post
Definitely enforce the XP penalty. Many classes first levels are VERY front loaded so a first level character has something going for it, unfortunately that also means a system must be in place to make sure people pay if they try and double up on first level bennies. Barbarian being a notable offender in 3.5.
Player wanted the bennies of the front loaded barbarian, player pays the XP penalty. I'd say remove the XP penalty and remove the speed boost. IMHO the speed boost belonged at second level barbarian anyhow.
Player wanted the bennies of the front loaded barbarian, player pays the XP penalty. I'd say remove the XP penalty and remove the speed boost. IMHO the speed boost belonged at second level barbarian anyhow.
