Why EXP penalty for Multiclassing anyway?

[kitcik]

The rule isn't there to balance things.

What's it there for then? The only effect it has is nerfing unbalanced multi-classing. If it is only for RP reasons, whether that is logical or not, why wouldn't it be an optional rule? Seems like its (unfulfilled) goal was to balance things.

 

[Hassassin]

What's it there for then?

What reason are most rules there? To model the reality of the game world in some way.

 

[kitcik]

While I sympathize with that to some extent, the outcome is "RAW is perfect" since that can be said of any and every rule.

I am not in the camp of "RAW is perfect."

Therefore, I feel free to discuss potential problems with RAW. RAW should, IMHO, be supported by legitimate game-play, game balance or other reasons. I am struggling to understand the reason for the XP penalty. As I said in a prior post, if it is solely for RP reasons, it should be an optional rule.

 

[Hassassin]

As I said in a prior post, if it is solely for RP reasons, it should be an optional rule.

That I don't get. There are rules that say Monks are lawful and Bards non-lawful. AFAICT, they are solely for "RP reasons". Do you think they should be optional?

Edit: That is, more optional than other rules, since in the end all the rules are optional.

 

[kitcik]

I am not saying that ANY rule that is solely for RP reasons should be optional, I am saying this rule, if it is solely for RP reasons, should be optional.

I freely admit that I am having difficulty putting this into words, but it seems akin to many of the other broad-based optional rules. "Yes, I like freely multi-classed characters, or no I don't."

The rule is so broad, the RP reason is completely unclear and left unstated. "In this world, I imagine people that can be both wizards and druids perfectly well, but if they are more wizard than druid then they should not benefit as much from their experiences as their comrades who are equally wizards and druids."

By contrast, the reason for a monk's being lawful (whether you like it or not) is made clear by plentiful flavor text.

I suspect the reason for the rule was balance, which it failed to achieve.

 

[frankthedm]

Some classes are front loaded. This is done so a player can have and enjoy their class abilities right away. Unfortunately this also means those trying to abuse the system can accumulate lots of abilities by grabbing a level from multiple classes. The XP penalty is supposed to discourage cherry picking of levels but sadly was not harsh enough. Because of those bean counters, several classes in 3.5 had to have to have special abilities delayed until second level or later.

Fantasy Craft had MUCH more elegant way of discouraging multiclass mushpotting. Rather than make a first level character wait for the big class abilities, you simply never get certain core class abilities through multiclassing. A class's prime ability was given only to those who started in that class.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

...I must confess (and I should have known better), I did not anticipate a debate when I started this thread. For those who enjoy such things, you're welcome. For those who dislike, I apologize.

 

[Jimlock]

LET ME CLARIFY.

I didn't start this thread for a discussion of do you like/not like, does it make sense/not make sense exp penalties.

I intended to know if anyone had information as to how this rule came to be origionally, or an offical justification for why this rule exists, behind what the PHB says, such as from an interview with developers, a statement from the Sage, or somesuch.

For example, what edition did this rule first occur? I'm pretty much a 3.x exclusive kind of guy.

From a game design standpoint one of the major purposes it serves is to discourage the single-dip into a class for the initial benefits (improved unarmed strike and stunning fist, fast movement and rage, all martial weapons plus a combat feat, huge spell list for using wands, plus notable saving throw bonuses for all classes). And then favored class provides a free pass on that for certain cultural combinations. I like the way that works and think it was a worthy attempt..

Well... bikkd91 said most of it...

if i could just name the reasons...:

1-Put the humans under the spotlight.

In 2nd e i remember humans being left behind in matters of racial abilities...it was mostly text with no rewards...
In 3.x the humans are now a race worth taking (feat, skill point) and the fact that they can pick any class without penalties is pretty consistent with how they are described in respect to other races.

2-Cultural consistency

I think the title speaks for itself. Races and classes were designed to be combined in certain ways. This does not mean that you won't see a halfling-barbarian once in your adventuring carrier...but in the end, the rules have to somehow support how each race is more like "this" than "that".

3-Avoid abuse/dipping

This 3rd reason is closely related to the 2nd one. If there are ways to abuse races by taking certain classes, then there are certainly ways to abuse classes with other classes. Even though it is clear that an X-level fighter gains important benefits by taking 1 Level of Barbarian. It is hard to picture say... an aristocrat-fencer (fighter) becoming at some point "barbaric"... and this paradox holds with many a class combination (especially when magic is involved).

One of the reasons D&D holds together throughout the years, is that people recognize the "flavor" of the game... the "flavor" of the races... the "flavor" of the classes... IMO this rule was made so as to maintain this flavor, and is quite efficient at doing so.

Everyone runs his game the way he wants to. I'm not saying that D&D SHOULD be played like that because otherwise its not D&D...
I'm merely trying to unveil the reasons behind a game's design...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Well... bikkd91 said most of it...

if i could just name the reasons...:

1-Put the humans under the spotlight.

In 2nd e i remember humans being left behind in matters of racial abilities...it was mostly text with no rewards...
In 3.x the humans are now a race worth taking (feat, skill point) and the fact that they can pick any class without penalties is pretty consistent with how they are described in respect to other races.

2-Cultural consistency

I think the title speaks for itself. Races and classes were designed to be combined in certain ways. This does not mean that you won't see a halfling-barbarian once in your adventuring carrier...but in the end, the rules have to somehow support how each race is more like "this" than "that".

3-Avoid abuse/dipping

This 3rd reason is closely related to the 2nd one. If there are ways to abuse races by taking certain classes, then there are certainly ways to abuse classes with other classes. Even though it is clear that an X-level fighter gains important benefits by taking 1 Level of Barbarian. It is hard to picture say... an aristocrat-fencer (fighter) becoming at some point "barbaric"... and this paradox holds with many a class combination (especially when magic is involved).

One of the reasons D&D holds together throughout the years, is that people recognize the "flavor" of the game... the "flavor" of the races... the "flavor" of the classes... IMO this rule was made so as to maintain this flavor, and is quite efficient at doing so.

Everyone runs his game the way he wants to. I'm not saying that D&D SHOULD be played like that because otherwise its not D&D...
I'm merely trying to unveil the reasons behind a game's design...

I appreciate this info. Thank you for compiling what others have said. I can understand (although still dissagree) this line of thinking from the developer's standpoint, especailly coming from 2nd edition's emphesis on racial distinctions/flavors. I feel satisfied that my original question has been answered, but everyone feel free to let the debate continue!

 

[Celebrim]

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

Of course not, you are human. You can automatically pick one of your majors as your favored class.

My assumption is that the XP penalty was intended for the following reasons:

a) To make human, which historically had been an unattractive option in many cases, more attractive as a choice in as much as many builds would require a human racial choice to avoid the XP penalty.
b) To discourage dipping into a large number of classes purely to achieve mechanical optimization.
c) To soft enforce archetypal differences in culture and abilities between the races without actually forbiding certain class combinations.

Of course, this was ultimately undermined by that worst and most poorly thought out of all 3.X era mechanics - the Prestige Class - but that is a different topic.

UPDATE: I guess I should read the thread before responding. Jimlock seems to have beaten me to it.