The Weird Penalty of Core Classes

[Klaus]

If you go the second route, be sure to take Nature Bond to beef up your horse. But bear in mind that you can't use skirmish while mounted (CAdv Errata).

When taking feats, favor the ones that you can use as a standard action, not full-round action, so you can still skirmish.

 

[The_Gneech]

If you go the second route, be sure to take Nature Bond to beef up your horse. But bear in mind that you can't use skirmish while mounted (CAdv Errata).

Argh! Beaten by the nerf stick!

Skirmish vs. Rapid Shot is an interesting tradeoff. Against a foe with DR, it's better to go Skirmish every time for the extra single-attack damage. Against multiple foes, or a single foe with a low AC, it's probably preferable to go with Rapid Shot for multiple attack chances (and thus multiple chances for a critical, multiple addon damage from the flaming bow, etc.). Both are valuable, but in different ways.

-The Gneech

 

[ARandomGod]

Yea, it's there, and just about the stupidest RAW rule out there IMO.

The experience penalty rule exists to discourage exactly the min-maxing class dipping you're trying. This rule is working as designed, no problem here. Suck it up.

I'll agree with your first sentance, however the rule is clearly not working as designed, it's having the exact opposite effect! You now are required to multiclass more, and dip more, thereby min/maxxing further.

One of the most obviously counter-effective rules out there. "I want a rule that lessens the desireability of multiclassing, so the effect I'll give is to make multiclassing much more required."


As for talking the GM into it... wood elves are a pretty good class there. So you take an int hit and lose a handful of skills, no big deal.

Did you actually read the post? He doesn't want to take Rogue 4, a full bab, +1 ref, 8 skill point and Uncanny dodge level because he wants his 13th level character to move in a more rangery direction. It's nowhere near class dipping for mechanical advantage. He's trying to avoid taking a penalty for avoiding taking the best level for him.

Ranger 5 gives him....a level away from Manyshot? A feat that doesn't see a whole lot of use at 15th level and one he may already have for around 9 levels.

While the multiclass xp penalty was trying to discourage uneven multiclassing it doesn't do it's job at all. It, combined with the +2 save at 1st, entices characters to take a1/b1/c1/d1/e1/Random Prestige class X.

I'd suggest the OP talk with his DM and explain what you want and point out at least one more level of rogue is almost better in every way than ranger.

Hehe. He read the post, but clearly didn't look at the levels ... and possibly just doesn't/didn't think of what the actual effect of the rule was/is.

I've had that favored class rule encourage more multiclassing than it's ever discouraged... indeed, I've never seen it do anything other than enforce steriotypes, I've never once known of a player who's been discouraged from massively multiclassing by that rule. I've only ever seen that rule discourage people from minimally multiclassing.

Didnt you know? Making a character interesting mechanically at all, and especially with multiclassing, is min-maxing! Fitting a concept is just an excuse us dirty min-maxers use for our nasty powergaming.

Sometimes the phrase is also used to indicate minimizing the headache while maximizing the fun. And you know how some people frown on THAT!

I'm probably not going to be popular for saying this, but favored class is there for a reason; it is meant as an advantage for humans and half-elves, and allowing any race to multiclass however they want, even for the sake of "character concept" dilutes that.

Yea...
two points: 1) Interestingly enough I've often seen the way the humans get this ability as an active penalty to multiclassing. A high level elven rogue can take a level of wizard with no penalty. But a high level human cannot.

2) Sometimes a race is "balanced" by giving it a favored class that's somewhat against what it's actual stats would indicate would be it's best race (Ok, I've done it once). However I've only rarely seen that done, more often I simply see it as a means to force the class into what's best for it, which means removing the rule doesn't affect the game balance at all.

If the player really wanted to mold a concept, then why not take a single class and work out what abilities need to be swapped out to make it fit.

IMO, whenever I see a bunch of classes and PrCs, then I do think power-gamer. The player may want to play a particular concept, but the end result is still a suped-up PC.

Because THAT, my friend, is not allowed in the game with the rules as written. In order to follow the rules as closely as possible you must do what the game has been designed for you to do to gain those abilities... take multiple classes.

Cherry-picking classes, number of levels in each class etc and then complaining about taking an XP hit IS powergaming. The players wants his "mechanically interesting" character without having to pay for it.

How is that really different from what you suggested above? Other than being technically in the rules? Cherry-picking abilities to swap in and out can be considered even more Min/Maxing, is definitely something that would be easier to min/max, and is a further rules alteration where it's not needed.

And seriously, not taking level 4 rouge is cherry picking the BEST for the character? Both you and the OP need to seriously rethink that. To him, come ON man, it's an awesome level! To you... Come ON man, it's an AWESOME LEVEL!!! Taking that level would be the essence of cherry picking.

So this forces players who want concepts that don't work with those restrictions for core classes to turn to feats, prcs, races, and non core classes in non-core books. 3/7 in core classes not appealing? Turn to 5/5 using a non-core class or prc.

Therefore scout class and thief acrobat prc. Voila rule works as designed. No problem here. Since you bought the supplement books with those other classes.

Revelation!! I think you've got it there. The rule is indeed working as intended, you just have to realize what the actual intention of the rule is.

The intention is hidded behind the mask of discouraging min/maxxing, of penalizing multiclasses... but indeed, as I suspected above, it's there to encourage it... but really not just for that, but to force you to buy/get access to more and more books PrC's, races, and feats!

The ultimate reason to pretend you're discouraging something people villify (min/max/multiclass) while secretly encouraging it (Min/Max Money spend!)

 

[wingsandsword]

The experience penalty rule exists to discourage exactly the min-maxing class dipping you're trying. This rule is working as designed, no problem here. Suck it up.

Or, the player has a clear character concept, is trying to make it fit into the system, and finds himself penalized when he tries to make the concept fit into the game. The rules are discouraging a player from creating an archetypical fantasy character, one of the very prototypes of elves in D&D. Sounds like the rules are the thing that's broken here.

The Favored Class rules are probably the worst thing about 3.x, they are to 3.x what Racial Level Limits were to AD&D, an arbitrary "balancing factor" that rarely comes up, but when it does it's a real kick in the teeth, and if it's dropped nobody would really notice it.

I realized this last year with a game I was running. One PC was an Elf Half Dragon (Crystal), so half Crystal Dragon half Elf, and was a Druid. After a while, the player thought it would be appropriate, given the psionic nature of gem dragons, to take some Psychic Warrior levels, but apparently it's so game breaking to be a Elf (Half Dragon) Druid 6/Psychic Warrior 1 that a permanent 10% XP penalty is a balancing factor. Never mind that both classes fit perfectly into the character concept, that Elven Druids are quite normal and being half-blood of an innately psionic creature would make sense to have psionic levels, the Favored Class rules got in the way. Since we were wary at the time to move outside the RAW, she ended up taking a powerful Psionic prestige class, which was way more powerful than Psychic Warrior, for no XP penalty, yeah, those Favored Class rules really do balance the game out alright.

That's when I realized they had to go. Admittedly, it was a perk of Humans and Half-Elves to have improved multiclassing, so they do need something to compensate (or getting some perk for using your Favored Class instead of a penalty for not following predefinied racial stereotypes).

 

[Michael Silverbane]

You could also try (though it may be a little late for this now) picking out the abilities that you want and jamming them all into a single home-made class that suits your ideal for the character's abilities... Then you don't have to multi-class at all...

Of course, you'll have to get your DM to approve it... But that's half the fun, right?

Later
silver

 

[The_Gneech]

I thought about trying to create some kind of "Mobile Archer" prestige class that would merge the fast acrobatics and acrobatic charge from Thief-Acrobat, with the precise shot and close combat shot of the Order of the Bow Initiate, and throw in the Arcane Acher's hail of arrows as the 10th-level ability, but I was worried my natural inclination would be to just throw everything at it ("Full BAB! d8 hit die! A buncha skill points! And a pony!") -- and that my GM, being basically a softie, would say "Fine with me."

I figured that if I stayed in the realm of existing, published classes, there was a better chance that I wouldn't create a crazybrokengood character who would just then need to be nerfed. But while doing so, I noticed the fact that you get "punished" for taking base classes as opposed to prestige classes due to the favored race rules, which is what led to my initial post.

-The Gneech