No multiclassing penalties?

[solkan_uk]

I used to give a bonus skill point as reward for taking a favoured class, the theory being it comes easier to you, so you have time to hone your skills. But the concept of favoured classes has faded from 'great idea, poorly executed' to 'meh, whatever' over the years.

As a note the favoured classes currently do nothing to encourage a character to play a particular class, they simply encourage you to dip into it for a couple of levels, knowing you won't have an xp penalty for doing so.

 

[Presto2112]

I personally won't be enforcing them when the time comes.

 

[kenmarable]

Never used them and haven't had any problems. Of course, I have been fortunate enough to have groups where players wouldn't even consider "level dipping" to get great combos. So that helps.

I have two main reasons for not using the penalties:

1) Book keeping pain. Same reason I don't use XP costs for magic items. Everyone levels together - period.

2) I don't see classes as being some set career, especially since most of it is self-taught while adventuring. Since PCs in my campaign don't go to "fighter school" to become a fighter, and have to go to "rogue school" to take any rogue levels, I can see things being more blended. Someone takes time to practice both their sneakiness and their swordplay, and so multiclass fighter/rogue. In their mind, they aren't trying to maintain two separate things, they see themselves as a "sneaky-warrior". For those PCs who want to pick up something entirely new (like a fighter picking up some cleric), I will try to work in an in-game event to help explain it. In fact, sometimes the opposite has happened, where some random in-game event got the player interested in multiclassing (like when a rogue died, and on a whim I wrote up what she experienced in her brief afterlife before being raised, and the player figured that would be quite a religious experience and started taking some levels of cleric).


But I've also debated having some bonus to those who take levels in their favored class. Don't want it to be unbalancing, just kinda fun bonus since I like the concept of favored classes, but not the execution of multiclass penalties. Either a minor extra ability at 1st level, or I like the idea above of an extra skill point. But I haven't gotten around to deciding on anything yet.

 

[RFisher]

Multiclassing has pretty hefty XP costs without the additional XP penalty. There are a couple of things to watch for:

(1) Dipping. IMHO, this is never really very bad. Still, you should keep in mind that 1st level in any (non-prestige) class represents a lot of training. It is something that probably shouldn't be picked up lightly. It's OK to require something in the PC's background or something non-mechanical in-game before picking up 1st level of a new class.

Then there are the saving throws. If you multi between three classes with the same good saving throw it can get a little silly. That's better fixed by addressing it directly, though.

(2) Given enough classes, there's bound to come up a combination with a benefit too good to pass up. These can be dealt with case-by-case as they come up. Don't be too quick to judge something as a problem, though.

 

[tylermalan]

I would almost be convinced, except for the fact that 33 people have voted yes, but none have supported their choice. I'd like to see some opinions from the other side of the argument, as well. So far its been a bunch of people agreeing with each other about how it doesn't really need an XP penalty.

 

[Nail]

I'd like to see some opinions from the other side of the argument, as well.

Done.

Multiclassing penalties:

• Tailor races to specific roles,
• Restrict excessive multiclassing,
• Reward fore-thought,
• Allow PrCs,
• Encourage higher-level PCs.

I like 'em, and I've kept 'em through all of my games. There's never been a complaint.

 

[Emongnome]

I got rid of them in our group, no problems yet, especially since my group doesn't do the min-maxing, level-dipping stuff at all. They rarely take PrCs, though some of that may be the lack of those players not buying very many books.

When I removed the xp penalties, I gave half-elves a free skill as a class skill permanently, so long as it was a skill that can be used untrained, as well as a +2 to one class skill that the half-elf doesn't already get a bonus. I didn't mess with humans, figured those abilities were good enough. Still don't have anybody play as half-elves, though.

 

[GreatLemur]

Multiclassing penalties, "exclusive" classes (such as Paladins and Monks), and racial favored classes are all ridiculous, illogical, and unnecessary. I don't see any value in enforcing class purity or race archetypes. That's just not my kind of game.

 

[maggot]

I for one like the flavor of multiclass penalties. Without them, the races seem more the same. (Not that I like the current favored classed for the races. In fact, I often play around with them to make a specific race in a specific campaign feel different. Halflings with monk as favored class feel a lot different than halflings with rogue favored.)

Beyond that, I like the fact that they prevent one-level dipping for the most part. True, usually only fighters gain from one level dips, but without some kind of cost to multiclassing, I end up seeing lots of FX/BY/RZ instead of pure anything. Not that I'm against FX/BY/RZ but the rules discourage pure F, B, or R too much for fighter types.

Actually, in my campaigns, I often just limit you to two classes plus your favored class and a prestige class. That works out better than any penalty.

So I'm voting "other".

 

[Korgoth]

Multiclassing penalties, "exclusive" classes (such as Paladins and Monks), and racial favored classes are all ridiculous, illogical, and unnecessary. I don't see any value in enforcing class purity or race archetypes. That's just not my kind of game.

Oddly, I don't know that many Olympic Gymnast / Fencer / Astrophysicist / Codicologist / Oncologist / Theologians.

As far as race archetypes, it depends on how you construe the races. "Pointy-eared humans" and "short, bearded humans" should not have any class restrictions. But if the races are actually different, and have a determinate culture and way of life that differs from humans, then I can see having restrictions in place (note that this assumes that each non-human race or subrace has a single culture, like Tolkien's Elves and Dwarves; if these races are polycultural then that changes things). So I don't think those restrictions are necessarily illogical - they only seem illogical if you come at it with certain assumptions about what the other races are. I prefer to construe them as different and somewhat alien... but difference and alterity only apply in cases of determinacy; if the races are culturally indeterminate then there's no basis for calling them different or alien, and they turn out to just be humans with physiological differences.