Why EXP penalty for Multiclassing anyway?

[RUMBLETiGER]

I'm pretty much a RAW DM and player, but one houserule in all our games is to ignore the EXP penalty for multiclassing. We've never understood why it existed.

So I was thinking about it the other day and figured I'd ask the question here. Why was this rule created? Why build in a punnishment for attempting versitility? You're already losing out on stronger abilities since you're not progressing in a single class, why punish further?

I double majored in college, no EXP penalties for me!

Anyone know the history of where this came from?

 

[Hassassin]

I get the reasoning behind it: maintaining two sets of abilities is harder and takes more time. Not sure it makes sense when PrCs (that never cause it) are seen as player tools.

 

[terrya]

Because the average human would not of double majored in college. If we are to play the rules of 3.5 by the letter its ment to take up to 2 weeks to get 1 point in a skill so a 20% penalty to try and master 2 classes at once IF you allow them to come out of balance seems perfectly reasonable to me. Especialy with the fact that your races favored class does not effect it.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I get the reasoning behind it: maintaining two sets of abilities is harder and takes more time. Not sure it makes sense when PrCs (that never cause it) are seen as player tools.

See, I don't get how maintaining 2 sets of abilities would be more difficult, in real life or in a drastic stretch of reality such as D&D. A Wizard7/Rogue3 isn't maintaining 2 sets of exually powerful abilities, he's only Sneak Attacking for 2d6 and casting spells one spell level less than his straight wizard buddies. He's doing both types of things less effectively than other adventurers who practice fully in that one craft, buy definition of the build, and IMHO doesn't need it any worse than it is.

Because the average human would not of double majored in college. If we are to play the rules of 3.5 by the letter its ment to take up to 2 weeks to get 1 point in a skill so a 20% penalty to try and master 2 classes at once IF you allow them to come out of balance seems perfectly reasonable to me. Especialy with the fact that your races favored class does not effect it.

The Average person is a Commoner. Adventurers are a better breed of person, and it's within the realm of totally doable for someone who aspires to travel the world seeking the fame and glory of an adventurer to have studied two things in college simultaniously.

I've never heard that it'd take 2 weeks to raise in 1 skillpoint. That makes sense, if we were going by real life. But when my character can raise from level 1 to 3 after fighting a few monsters in his first day treking through a dungeon, real life ideas are flushed down the toilet.

Anyway, I thank you both for trying to help me understand this idea, I'm just not getting it yet.

 

[Hassassin]

See, I don't get how maintaining 2 sets of abilities would be more difficult, in real life or in a drastic stretch of reality such as D&D.

Think about a university researcher who is also playing professional sports. Can you not see how staying in shape physically and keeping up to date on other research groups' findings compete for time?

Mechanically and from a "balance" point of view I agree that it makes little sense.

 

[Hassassin]

I've never heard that it'd take 2 weeks to raise in 1 skillpoint. That makes sense, if we were going by real life. But when my character can raise from level 1 to 3 after fighting a few monsters in his first day treking through a dungeon, real life ideas are flushed down the toilet.

I don't know a 2-week rule, either, but I have a house rule in my current campaign that you need at least a week of downtime after getting the XP to take the level.

 

[terrya]

If you feel so strongly about it dont enforce it. One of the best part about the DND rules is their a guideline not a gosbel. And my one last thing i could point out is that during your studying did you stop to fight goblins / save empires and fly dragons? The mind is only ment to be able to cope with so much and i really struggle to see how it can be a large problem in a game due to the "favored Class" racial feature designed to solve this problem, among others. Its also to balance the fact that (unlike you seem to believe) i see multiclassing as a huge benifit. For example my cleric atm is lvl 1 barbarian/4 Cleric. I am 1 behind in spells granted but the proficienys and extra abilitys gained are HUGE.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Basically, it's bad design.

It's supposed to be "favored class". That means that they were probably trying to reinforce the class preference of classic races (dwarven fighters, elven wizards, halfling rogues) and encourage players of those races to choose those classes. Used to be those races could only play a few "favored classes" in 2nd edition (and probably earlier).

The new rule is very different because of 3e's freeness in multiclassing, but in theory encourages any halfling to take a rogue level or two, and take no penalty for it, whereas if that same halfling multiclassed into barbarian it would incur a penalty. It emphasizes human versatility in the same way (humans used to have different multiclassing rules to the same effect).

In truth, good design is usually about rewarding good choices as much as punishing bad ones. This is one area where Pathfinder did much better. In PF, you receive a small bonus each time you take your favored class.

The XP penalty is, by comparison, confusing, limiting, and not fun. A lot of people ignore it. Heck, a lot of people don't even use XP.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Basically, by taking a 20% experience point hit, you start dropping behind your party members in levels. 5 levels in, you end up an entire level behind. 10 levels in, you're 8 while everyone else is 10. You're 16 while others are 20. This seems a harsh punnishment simply because I wanted to take one level of Barbarian for my Fighter for an extra 10' landspeed and slightly better HP Back in the early levels.

Mechanically, this seems cruel and excessive.

Even if I were to accept the idea that it is more realistic to believe that a person multitasking has a harding time doing so (which I don't believe), D&D ignores realism in so many other areas for the sake of fun, I don't see why this rule was even put in.

As I said, I do houserule this out. But I don't understand who would keep this in, and why it was created in the first place.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

If you feel so strongly about it dont enforce it. One of the best part about the DND rules is their a guideline not a gosbel. And my one last thing i could point out is that during your studying did you stop to fight goblins / save empires and fly dragons? The mind is only ment to be able to cope with so much and i really struggle to see how it can be a large problem in a game due to the "favored Class" racial feature designed to solve this problem, among others. Its also to balance the fact that (unlike you seem to believe) i see multiclassing as a huge benifit. For example my cleric atm is lvl 1 barbarian/4 Cleric. I am 1 behind in spells granted but the proficienys and extra abilitys gained are HUGE.

Please understand, I do believe that multiclassing, if done wisely, is a huge benefit. However, it also comes with it's own drawbacks, which in my opinion, balances out the benefits nicely. A 1 level dip in Barbarian is incredibly useful for many builds. A 1 or 2 level dip into fighter is great for many melee builds. The list goes on. I encourage multiclassing in my campaigns.