Why EXP penalty for Multiclassing anyway?

[kitcik]

It is hard to picture say... an aristocrat-fencer (fighter) becoming at some point "barbaric"...

I see a contradiction in saying a human aristocrat-fencer could suddenly become barbaric, but a hobgoblin aristocrat-fencer could not.

That said, I tire of this topic. I think we all know where everyone stands.

As long as you enjoy it, it's cool by me.

 

[Jimlock]

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

lol .....that's what i call an 100% agreement!!!!

 

[Jimlock]

I see a contradiction in saying a human aristocrat-fencer could suddenly become barbaric, but a hobgoblin aristocrat-fencer could not.

Yes, the rules the designers came up with so as to 1-Put the humans under the spotlight., 2- Maintain cultural consistency, 3-Avoid abuse/dipping
...put together entail some contradiction.


On a side note: One feeling tired can always rest.

 

[Celebrim]

I see a contradiction in saying a human aristocrat-fencer could suddenly become barbaric, but a hobgoblin aristocrat-fencer could not.

Is that because you see the hobgoblin as being more inately 'barbaric'?

If so, then I have good news for you. If the hobgoblin has 'barbarian' for a favored class, his ability to change careers and go into barbarian is quite possibly better than the humans.

Suppose the human is a 5th level aristocrat/5th level duelist (supposing of course that those are both base classes), and the hobgobin with the favored class of barbarian is the same. The human's career path ties him somewhat to not becoming a barbarian; if he does, he takes a 10% XP penalty because the lessons learned by the one skill path don't always benefit the other. By contrast, the hobgoblin is shackled only by continuing along his current career path or to picking up some other tangental one, but is free to let his natural barbarian out.

Of course in point of fact, I don't think hobgoblins actually do have barbarian as a favored class, but if hobgoblins don't and aren't known for that, then it to me is reasonable to see humans - with there inate gifts of being adaptable and able to pick up new and diverse skills - as being favored compared to hobgoblins who aren't known either for adaptablity (how diverse is the hobgoblin archetype anyway?) or being beserking warriors.

 

[kitcik]

Hobgoblin has a favored class of fighter. I still see them as more barbaric than humans. And, this was only one example (there are hundreds of legal races and classes - I could come up with 300 similar examples easily). To me, the rule is completely arbitrary and contradictory in its goals (as set forth by the prior post) as I said before.

I do have to say, after further reflection, that those probably were the goals: especially #1 & #3 (emphasizing humans & game balance). I just don't think the latter worked at all.

In 1E, there were strict level limitations on non-humans. For instance, half-orcs could only be 4th level clerics (6th with a very high wisdom). The way multi-classing worked back then was that you had to divide your XP between classes - so half-orcs had to keep throwing XP into cleric even though they could not advance in it. Those rules didn't work either.

 

[Jhaelen]

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?

Well, _I_ think the game would be better if it didn't have alignment rules, so you can guess what I think about that

 

[Hassassin]

Well, _I_ think the game would be better if it didn't have alignment rules, so you can guess what I think about that

So do I, but given the way the rest of the rules are...

 

[Tharkon]

Multiclassing has some big advantages as well.
Most obvious is saving throws since every class you take grants you +2 at least one save for a single level.
Additional classes also increase the amount of skills you can consider class skills when calculating max ranks.
And taking a single level in a spellcasting class gives you access to scrolls, wands, etc.
Many classes have unique stuff (like a Barbarian's Fast Movement, a Cleric's ability to turn undead or a Paladin's detect evil) and as such it can be an advantage if you can snoop of all of them.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Multiclassing has some big advantages as well.
Most obvious is saving throws since every class you take grants you +2 at least one save for a single level.
Additional classes also increase the amount of skills you can consider class skills when calculating max ranks.
And taking a single level in a spellcasting class gives you access to scrolls, wands, etc.
Many classes have unique stuff (like a Barbarian's Fast Movement, a Cleric's ability to turn undead or a Paladin's detect evil) and as such it can be an advantage if you can snoop of all of them.

In a brief campaign I decided to make a CG Shifter character based off of my pet cat, with emphasis on a flightiness, "Oh, shiney!" mentality. As a rule for this character, he was going to be a different class every level. By the time the campaign ended he was level 6, Barbarian1/Scout1/Ranger1/Duskblade1/Druid1/Warblade1. Much fun to play, kept up with the other party members pretty well. He'd no doubt have fallen behind when we got to level 10+, but up to 6 he did pretty awesome, having a few options in any given situation.

 

[Duke Arioch]

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?

I can totally picture a court-bard being lawful... loyal to his/her king/queen, to the laws of his country and living by the rules set by society. Can monks be chaotic? Why not? I think the monk thing is based on discipline they must have to adapt into their circles. But those two aren't the same thing.