Why EXP penalty for Multiclassing anyway?

[Keldryn]

I think that the multi-classing XP penalty issue is an artifact of the designers' intent not matching up with how people actually ended up playing the game.

Of course I can't say that I know what the designers originally intended, but I think I'm pretty close to the mark here. Multi-classing in 3.x was designed to replace and consolidate the non-intuitive multi- and dual-classing rules in 1st end 2nd Edition. Most multi-classed characters in 1st/2nd had two classes, with the occasional elf or half-elf Fighter/Magic-User/Thief (who advanced very slowly, dividing XP between three classes).

I don't think that it was the intent of the designers that players would build their characters with a level of this and a level of 3 or 4 other classes. Character classes were originally archetypes, not professions or lists of related abilities. The Fighter 3/Barbarian 1/Ranger 2/Rogue 2 character is not an archetype and I really don't think that the designers intended that Fighters would be played that way; multi-classing was included to allow a Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Rogue class pairing.

Now, whether or not the multi-classing XP penalty was an effective means of restricting this sort of thing is an entirely different issue. I don't think that the designers saw the weakening of classes as archetypes that took place when they re-designed the multi-classing system. If the "2 or 3 levels in 4 base classes, 5 levels in one prestige class, and 2 levels in two other prestige classes" model of character building was what was originally intended, then they would have designed D&D as a point-based system, as that would have been a whole lot cleaner.

A first-level character is assumed to have spent several years in training to have acquired the entire "starting package" of his or her class; frankly I find it ridiculous that a character can simply take a level in a brand new and unrelated class as easily as taking another level in his or her original class. One could rationalize the XP penalty in terms of having spent 10 years training to be a Cleric and now suddenly trying to learn all of the basics of being a Wizard in the span of a few weeks.

As for the multi-classing XP penalty not applying to prestige classes... Well, it's never expressly stated anywhere but given that they were originally intended to be a DM tool for customizing the campaign, I would guess that the intent was that a PC would have one prestige class at most. The original concept of prestige classes was that they represented specific roles within the game world. This carries with it the implicit assumption that a character would actually have to make contact with an existing member of that organization or specialization and fulfill whatever in-world requirements for joining.

So that's my take on it. I think that the designers intended that a PC might eventually take levels in two base classes (three at most) and perhaps one prestige class. They re-designed the system to loosen up the overly-restrictive nature of AD&D but I think that they may have had blinders on and assumed that players would follow the same general model of character creation. The multi-classing XP penalty may have been a late addition, perhaps suggested by the same playtesters who wanted multi-classing restrictions on Paladins and Monks.

 

[nijineko]

The answer to this has its roots in the early era of roleplaying. It was assumed by the creators that characters spend a certain amount of 'downtime' each day. This downtime did not include the sleep period. The downtime was the time used to practice weapon forms and do various exercises, study arcane texts for hints of new magic, and meditate to unlocks secrets of the spheres and self.

To use my own made up analogy, sleeping was 8 hours a day, adventuring was 8 hours, and downtime was the last 8 hours.

It was further assumed that maintaining (at current level) and/or advancing abilities required daily work and effort, much like improving swordsmanship in real life would, or studying advanced chemistry.

In old d&d, taking a second class was called dual-classing, and taking a third or more was called multi-classing.

It is important to note that dual-classing split your xp between the classes, and there were special tables for when you advanced in level. These tables wound up putting you somewhat behind the single classed characters, but not a full half behind, more like a quarter, iirc.

Multi-classing, however, hit your advancement a lot harder. In other words dual classing was cheaper than multiclassing... which to my mind agrees with the sentiment I've seen expressed that taking a second class shouldn't hit so hard.

So basically, they thought it was a bit of a challenge to progress in two things, but a really big challenge to progress in three things.

In the modern versions of d&d (i'm going to pick 3rd specifically for a moment) the whole downtime concept has turned into the "8 hours rest + 1 hour of study" required for casters to regain abilities.

The dual and multi-classing rules were combined, and the cost flattened. Like much of d&d, I think the end result is influenced by legacy concepts. The whole bit about close in levels or penalty probably comes from the difference in dual and multi-class rules as a legacy leftover.

And here we all are. ^^

One possible alternate solution for those who agree with the idea, but not the execution, is to flatten it even more. A simple 10% or 20% penalty per class beyond the second should suffice.

For example, progress in one class. Pick a second class. Dip a third and the third costs you the penalty. Select a fourth and the penalty increases.



edit: hahaha, i should read the whole thread before posting. ^^ just saw the post above mine.

 

[Jimlock]

In old d&d, taking a second class was called dual-classing, and taking a third or more was called multi-classing.

Not true... with 2ed at least.

Mulitlcassiing was possible with two levels.

Multiclassing did not allow more than three classes.

 

[Celebrim]

The answer to this has its roots in the early era of roleplaying. It was assumed by the creators that characters spend a certain amount of 'downtime' each day. This downtime did not include the sleep period. The downtime was the time used to practice weapon forms and do various exercises, study arcane texts for hints of new magic, and meditate to unlocks secrets of the spheres and self.

To use my own made up analogy, sleeping was 8 hours a day, adventuring was 8 hours, and downtime was the last 8 hours.

It was further assumed that maintaining (at current level) and/or advancing abilities required daily work and effort, much like improving swordsmanship in real life would, or studying advanced chemistry...

Nijineko: Your post is true up to this point. After that point, it introduces at least one major error in each sentence. I think your memory must have become fogged over time, because your recall of the actual rules of earlier editions is highly confused. Among other things, I strongly encourage you to re-read the 1st edition Player's Handbook to refresh yourself on the actual difference between dual classing and multi-classing.

 

[nijineko]

you are probably correct. it has been ages since i actually read anything but adventures from that edition, and that was all from memory. ^^ one per sentence, eh? wow. impressive record even for me and my hit-or-miss memory. =D then again, that may have just been how i learned it from my dms back then... hmmm. guess i'll have to check as you suggest one of these days. in any case, thanks for catching my errors!