No multiclassing penalties?

[Thunderfoot]

I use the penalties, but currently, no one is multiclassing (or for that matter even shows an interest in it.) I guess my biggest concern for multiclassing in 3E is plausability. Tom the mage studies for many years, being an apprentice to learn the proper incantations and just the right balance of fluff and crunch to make the 'magic' happen, finally earning the right to practice on his own. Meanwhile Bob the fighter happens to look at Tom one day and says, oh, I can do that and boom, he's a fighter/mage... Suspension of belief has been flushed down the toilet.

The concept of dual classing in 1e and 2e at least made some sense, giving up all benefits of your first class to persue you chosen new profession until such time as you caould handle using both (ie equal levels). It meant that instead of learning the old fashioned safe way, you plugged through until you figured it out (losing any XP if you fell back on what you knew).

It doesn't work in 3E, it just adds frustration, but takes away that believability factor. The level restrictions are meant to compensate for this, but anyone taking a favored class and only one other class never has any problems with this I find it a little insulting to my intelligence to think that all members of a society are trained in a single job and then get to choose something else to fall back on. I mean how many of you were trained as farmers, or mechanics or electrical engineers, a few I'm sure, but I doubt there is a single job that EVERYONE in the human race or even everyone in the same country can say, oh yeah I know that.

If anyone knows of a way that works within the rules without throwing them completely out of balance but brings back the flavor of multi/dual-classing the way it was intended, please let me know.

 

[Gundark]

I will say that I never used them before (multiclassing penalities). But after having a min-maxer join our group and really seeing how the rules can be abused I'm serious thinking of enforcing them in futrue campaigns.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like having multi-classing penalties to put some restriction on the near-limitless character options, both for DM sanity, and I think it's better for the players, too. I know when I want to write a creative story or essay, I need some sort of boundaries placed on my thoughts in order to focus on some particular theme or goal.

However, I do hate shoe-horning the non-human races into the same, sterotyped multiclassing options. Further, certain classes seem like they should be open to any race. The core books label these as cleric, fighter, rouge, and wizard. I think only cleric and rouge -- depending on the race, there may be a more common warrior or arcanist, such as sorceror for half-orcs, or ranger for elves -- but that's just a side rant.

My solution: give races a list of possible favored classes, and they choose one at first level, after which it cannot be changed. As I said before, cleric and rouge is available to all. To compensate humans and half-elves, they get an "active" favored class. They're favored class can change at any given time to give no XP penalty or the smallest possible. Basically, their racialy versatility allows them to multiclass much more freely, as long as they plan it out well. I think this allows for more diverse character choices, while also still giving that important limiting factor and protecting against cheesy multi-dipping.

 

[Li Shenron]

Multiclassing penalties are a decent bonus for being a human or half-elf.

They never really forbid a character concept, only a character combination of levels/abilities.

 

[Darklone]

Multiclassing penalties are a decent bonus for being a human or half-elf.

They never really forbid a character concept, only a character combination of levels/abilities.

Agreed. I think the problems with multiclassing listed in this thread here are the biggest problem with the half-elf race...

 

[Mighty Veil]

I don't use them either. I sorta miss the rules for classes/levels with demi-humans.

Sean Reynolds on his board mentioned that the M/C rules are flavor rules. No mechanics in troubles if you got rid of it. Purely flavor. In fact, the races themselves show what class is best suited for them. Except elf. Its more designed for a ranger or fighter-archer.

 

[RFisher]

It takes a multiclass character 15,000 XP to get what would have cost two singleclassed characters only 6,000 XP. (i.e. 3,000 XP each) Plus, the multiclass character can only do half as much in the same amount of time as the two singleclassed characters.

Of course, some of the abilities (BAB & saves) stack, so that's an advantage for the multiclass character. Except, that he hasn't outpaced a single, singleclassed character of the same character level.

So, barring unexpected synergies, I have a hard time seeing multiclassing creating super-characters all that often.

Ever seen a fighter without levels of barbarian and/or ranger?

Yes.

consider simply the +2 in saves every 1st level one picks up

I still say fixing that directly is better course than the XP penalties.

Multiclassing penalties are a decent bonus for being a human or half-elf.

If the favored class for humans & half-elves were really "any" instead of "highest", I might agree.

 

[kenmarable]

Multiclassing is already too easy with not enough of a penalty or disincentive. Ever seen a fighter without levels of barbarian and/or ranger? Me neither. The game mechanically favors multiclass characters in many cases, especially with the application of prestige classes.

I guess it's a difference in players. In all my groups and campaigns I have NEVER seen a character with levels of fighter and either barbarian or ranger, and I've seen plenty of multiclassing.

In all the groups I've played/DMed with, the combination of fighter with barbarian or ranger would seem weird since they are conceptually so similiar. If you want to be good at fighting and raging, be a barbarian. You want favored enemies and be good at fighting, be a ranger. It never occurred to me until your message that anyone would even want to combine fighter with either of those classes.

When players in my groups have decided to multiclass, it has typically been to combine different concepts - the fighter/rogue, or the enchanter with a religious awakening multiclassing into cleric. If anything, the most common multiclassing (usually my PCs) is [fighting class]/[spellcasterish class]. For example, fighter/sorcerer, fighter/psion, and right now I'm playing a swordsage/binder.

So, yes I have seen plenty of fighters without levels of barbarian and/or ranger. Never assume your experiences are typical of everyone's.

 

[kenmarable]

I don't use them either. I sorta miss the rules for classes/levels with demi-humans.

Just goes to show how diverse people's opinions can be. The rules for class/levels with demi-humans was in my opinion one of the worst things about previous editions. When 3e got rid of that, it tied with "making everything d20+bonus vs. DC" as the best thing about the new system in my mind.

Not jumping on your opinion, mind you, I just finding it amusing that in my mindset I have no idea how anyone could have liked those rules. Nothing wrong with that, I also have no idea how anyone can eat something with mustard on it without vomiting. There's nothing wrong with mustard, I just can't conceive of liking it.

 

[Shade]

Ever seen a fighter without levels of barbarian and/or ranger?

99% of the time in our campaigns. And my character only has ranger levels because he was already a ranger in 2E before we made the switch. I'd gladly dump those levels for more fighter levels.

Just goes to show how diverse people's opinions can be. The rules for class/levels with demi-humans was in my opinion one of the worst things about previous editions. When 3e got rid of that, it tied with "making everything d20+bonus vs. DC" as the best thing about the new system in my mind.

Same here. I'm soooo glad they are gone.

Not jumping on your opinion, mind you, I just finding it amusing that in my mindset I have no idea how anyone could have liked those rules. Nothing wrong with that, I also have no idea how anyone can eat something with mustard on it without vomiting. There's nothing wrong with mustard, I just can't conceive of liking it.

That's how I feel about onions.