No multiclassing penalties?

[Kurashu]

I don't enforce them. My old DM did from time to time, but it seemed like he mostly forgot about them (then again, this is the DM that thought DR/magic applied to everything but spells).

Then again, the people I play with aren't optimizers, as the fun thing to call them these days, "munchkins."

 

[Shade]

I think if these aren't issues in your game they can easily be discarded. I think the half-elf needs something to replace their "favored class: any" advantage. The human, IMO, is still attractive without it (the bonus feat at first level is possibly the best racial ability in the game).

I'm in full agreement with you.

My solution was to dump the half-elf as a separate race. I've never understood the need for them. If anything, they should be a background feat for a human or elven character, similar to Jotunbrud, the heritage feats, or any of the other "you are descended from X" feats.

I agree that humans, with the bonus feat and skill point per level, are unfazed by dropping the multiclass penalties.

 

[Glyfair]

I'm in full agreement with you.

My solution was to dump the half-elf as a separate race. I've never understood the need for them. If anything, they should be a background feat for a human or elven character, similar to Jotunbrud, the heritage feats, or any of the other "you are descended from X" feats.

I agree that humans, with the bonus feat and skill point per level, are unfazed by dropping the multiclass penalties.

I have to admit, if I was redesigning D&D from the ground up, I would take a page from Fantasy Hero and separate racial abilities into genetic and cultural. A human raised by dwarves would have the human genetic abilities and the dwarven cultural. Of course, the would require a major rebalancing of racial abilities.

 

[Nyeshet]

While I expected 'No' to have the lead, I must admit I am surprised at how much of a lead it actually has gained.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

Actually Bob the fighter went to magic school. Studied for a while but never succeeded in spellcasting. Still he has the books and when he gets the chance he tries to study them. A few months hanging out with Tom were all it took to turn the theory into practice. One day boom, it all clicked and on that morning he prepared a spell and successfully cast it later that day.

Of course, this means the Bob character sheet should have always had a spellbook and spell component pouch on it. But most people like to plan out their character's progressions so the above at least is plausible.

Oh, and we don't use the penalties. There's a rogue-27, sorcerer-25 (+2 LA), Fighter-15/special PrC-10 (+2 LA), fighter-8/cleric-9/radiant servant-10, ranger-14/rogue-9/thief-acrobat-4, and my custom class-20 (from my book)/custom PrC-7. Of those characters, only the thief-acrobat involves dipping and those levels were taken during levels 21-24 (levels 25-27 are the ranger levels 12-14).

 

[Aeric]

Multiclassing is often its own penalty. Some classes are complimentary, while others are not. No fighter/wizard is going to be as good at fighting as the single-classed fighter, or as good at magic as the single-classed wizard. That's why we're seeing a lot of new core classes like the warmage or duskblade--so people can have their cake and eat it too.

Some classes do well together--fighter/rogue, for example, or sorcerer/cleric. However, theirs is a lateral expansion of abilities rather than a vertical one. The sorcerer/cleric has a much greater repertiore of spells than a straight-classed sorcerer or cleric, but his power level takes a hit. It's a trade-off, but a reasonable one.

I recently played a fighter/swashbuckler/scout. The combination worked much better for my character concept than any one of the classes could have. Playing leapfrog with the levels in order to avoid an XP penalty was a pain, though.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Multiclassing penalties, like cross-class skills, are something I have always felt should be eliminated.

 

[Drowbane]

No

I've wondered whether multiclassing penalties should exist, and I'm considering eliminating them from my game. My reasoning is that one is sacrificing growth in one class to grow in another area. For example, you get fewer spells per day if you're a wizard taking a fighter level, but you get an improved BAB and Fort saves. However, I can see the point of view saying that multiclassing penalties are important because it discourages people from taking a few lvls here and there to take advantage of some powerful class abilities, this letting them create a broken character. What do you think?

EDIT: grammar

Multiclass penalties do nothing but punish those too new to the game to know thier way around them.

Just drop the false penalties and keep an eye on what your players make.

 

[RFisher]

The more I think about, the more I dislike the fact that 3.5 tried to discourage dipping by giving the classes less at first level. You shouldn't change the classes to fix multiclassing (any more than 3.0 already did). You should change multiclassing instead. (Assuming that you think dipping was a problem in 3.0, of course.)

 

[Agamemnon]

I liked those rules so much that I used them in my last D&D campaign. Basically every full 5 levels in your favoured class and you gain a bonus feat. Humans and Half-elves get to choose whatever favoured class they want.

The dynamic it creates is that races often tend towards specialising in their favoured class (rather than being more likely to dabble in their favoured class, which is the way the existing rules work, and seems counter-intuitive to me).

It is an interesting proposition, certainly. A "full" bonus feat with no limitations is kind of a big benefit, certainly, and certain races are already well-disposed towards taking levels in their favored classes (Dwarves). I'd be persuaded to do something like that for PCs who take a lot of base class levels instead of opting for PrCs, myself.