Favored class homebrew rule

[Prezes]

Would it be ok if:
Elves favored class will be: wizard AND duskblade

Would it hurt the game balance in any way?

[loky1109]

Would it hurt the game balance in any way?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

[Prezes]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.

Thanks (Let's count it as both answers)

[pabelfly]

Most groups typically ignore the favored class rule entirely with no issue, including my group. I'd recommend removing it entirely.

[Bohandas]

Yeah, I don't think anybody uses the multiclassing restrictions to begin with

[StreamOfTheSky]

Shouldn't use favored class at all.
If you do, every race should halve a bunch of options, not just one. Having just the one core class choice just further blocks people from playing the non-core classes (which, with like 3 exceptions -- artificer, archivist, and maybe sha'ir -- are weaker than core classes overall) or forces them to play human yet again.
I had been compiling a list of favored class options for the main races if you would like. I scrapped the idea when I realized it was a lot of added houserule text for no real benefit vs. just not using FC rules at all.

[Darg]

It's an extremely small penalty that has you end up only something like 20% of a single level behind others that don't have the penalty. Not being behind 1-3 encounters in levels is not going to unbalance anything.

[Chronos]

I like the idea of favored classes, but the problem is that, as implemented, it's just an exception to a rule that almost nobody uses in the first place.

That said, if you are using some sort of favored class rule, what I do to accommodate non-core classes is to call every class equivalent to one of the core classes. So for instance, if your race has favored class: paladin, that also applies to crusader, soulborn, and hexblade, because those are the classes I consider equivalent to paladin. And it works both ways: By the book, azurins have favored class: soulborn, so they could also do paladin, crusader, or hexblade.

IIRC, I put Duskblade in the same category as Bard, but that one was always a poor fit, since there really isn't any single core "gish class".

[pabelfly]

I like the idea of favored classes, but the problem is that, as implemented, it's just an exception to a rule that almost nobody uses in the first place.

If you want to keep Favored Class but don't like the penalty, you could just implement Pathfinder's rules for Favored Class. Instead of a penalty, it instead rewards you with either +1 skill rank per level or +1 HP per level if you take your Favored Class (also has various racial options). I feel it's a much better system if you really want Favored Classes to still exist in-game.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you want to keep Favored Class but don't like the penalty, you could just implement Pathfinder's rules for Favored Class. Instead of a penalty, it instead rewards you with either +1 skill rank per level or +1 HP per level if you take your Favored Class (also has various racial options). I feel it's a much better system if you really want Favored Classes to still exist in-game.

The really great thing about Pathfinder's favored class system, though, is that it's not based on race. Each character individually chooses what their favored class will be.

[RedMage125]

I have only ever had ONE DM who used favored Class and multiclassing XP penalties. And during the course of that game, when he was having to take so much extra time to determine XP for those who had penalties, he said he was never gonna use it again.

[Darg]

I have only ever had ONE DM who used favored Class and multiclassing XP penalties. And during the course of that game, when he was having to take so much extra time to determine XP for those who had penalties, he said he was never gonna use it again.

I'm really confused here. All you have to do is take the XP reward, divide it between the party, and then take that amount and multiply it by .8/.64/.51/.41/etc depending on the number of multiclasses that are uneven. Was the DM the one keeping track of everyone's xp levels during the session? I could see adding extra xp modifications could be detrimental in that case, especially if they had to keep track of xp cost expenditure. Personally I let players keep track of how much xp they earn or spend during a session. All I have to do afterward is just run down the items they write down and make sure it looks like it matches what I see during the game. Pretty quick and easy. I'm sure a few mistakes get through, but overall it isn't that big a deal if a multiclass character levels one encounter sooner or something.

[RedMage125]

I'm really confused here. All you have to do is take the XP reward, divide it between the party, and then take that amount and multiply it by .8/.64/.51/.41/etc depending on the number of multiclasses that are uneven. Was the DM the one keeping track of everyone's xp levels during the session? I could see adding extra xp modifications could be detrimental in that case, especially if they had to keep track of xp cost expenditure. Personally I let players keep track of how much xp they earn or spend during a session. All I have to do afterward is just run down the items they write down and make sure it looks like it matches what I see during the game. Pretty quick and easy. I'm sure a few mistakes get through, but overall it isn't that big a deal if a multiclass character levels one encounter sooner or something.

Some party members were different levels. 3 of us were level 15, two were level 14. So if it was a CR16 creature, he had to do the XP total for an ECL 15, and divide that by 5 (number of players). And do the XP total for an ECL 14 and divide by 5. And one of each of the two people with multiclassing penalties was in each group. So when he handed out XP, it was 4 different totals.

Yes, eventually, the increased XP for the lower level characters means they caught up, until the higher level people leveled first again.

It was more hassle than it was worth, because what, really, is the benefit of xp penalties?

[AvatarVecna]

Giving one race one extra favored class will not break things, because giving every race every favored class doesn't break things.

[Darg]

It was more hassle than it was worth, because what, really, is the benefit of xp penalties?

It's not a benefit, it's a deterrent. The point is to discourage players having certain behaviors. Overall it's not really that big a deal.

Some party members were different levels. 3 of us were level 15, two were level 14. So if it was a CR16 creature, he had to do the XP total for an ECL 15, and divide that by 5 (number of players). And do the XP total for an ECL 14 and divide by 5. And one of each of the two people with multiclassing penalties was in each group. So when he handed out XP, it was 4 different totals.

6750/5 = 1350 for the 15s or 1350*0.8 = 1080 for the uneven
8400/5 = 1680 for the 14s or 1680*0.8 = 1344 for the uneven

That took me 15 seconds to get all four results on my calculator. Practically speaking, it's really not much of a time sink when you have the xp table right in front of you.

[RedMage125]

It's not a benefit, it's a deterrent. The point is to discourage players having certain behaviors. Overall it's not really that big a deal.

Having mechanics that are "deterrents" for any combination of race and class that does not fit into the specific defaults of the core rules is, in my opinion, asinine.

6750/5 = 1350 for the 15s or 1350*0.8 = 1080 for the uneven
8400/5 = 1680 for the 14s or 1680*0.8 = 1344 for the uneven

That took me 15 seconds to get all four results on my calculator. Practically speaking, it's really not much of a time sink when you have the xp table right in front of you.

Okay, that was for one creature. Now there's a combat encounter with several creatures, all of different CR. Let's say 4 different CRs. So that's that process, 4 times, then adding the totals of all 4 columns together to give the players the total that their PC gets.

Again, most DMs, in my experience, just ignore multiclassing XP penalties. I do as well.

[pabelfly]

It's not a benefit, it's a deterrent. The point is to discourage players having certain behaviors. Overall it's not really that big a deal.

I don't understand the point of the deterrent. An Elf who went Wizard 20 is infinitely stronger than an Elf who went Barbarian 2/Fighter 18 and got the Favored Class penalty. What are we deterring here, exactly?

The only point, then, is if we want to encourage certain races to focus on certain classes, if we feel that this is important for worldbuilding and lore. I don't think that's necessary either.

[RedMage125]

I don't understand the point of the deterrent. An Elf who went Wizard 20 is infinitely stronger than an Elf who went Barbarian 2/Fighter 18 and got the Favored Class penalty. What are we deterring here, exactly?

The only point, then, is if we want to encourage certain races to focus on certain classes, if we feel that this is important for worldbuilding and lore. I don't think that's necessary either.

Exactly. And what about worlds where elves do NOT have a penchant, biologically or culturally, for wizardry? Or where Dwarves are almost entirely savage people leaning towards barbarians? Even changing WHICH class is the favored class for a race doesn't really help. It's not more fun for the players, it doesn't ACTUALLY encourage choices which tie mechanics to the narrative, and it doesn't provide any aid to the DM.

Pathfinder providing actual BENEFITS to race/class combinations is much better, by far.

[Darg]

Having mechanics that are "deterrents" for any combination of race and class that does not fit into the specific defaults of the core rules is, in my opinion, asinine.

The multiclass uneven levels penalty is a baseline rule. A favored class is incentive to dip particular classes as particular races as you won't be penalized as normal.

Okay, that was for one creature. Now there's a combat encounter with several creatures, all of different CR. Let's say 4 different CRs. So that's that process, 4 times, then adding the totals of all 4 columns together to give the players the total that their PC gets.

Again, most DMs, in my experience, just ignore multiclassing XP penalties. I do as well.

I don't see the problem here. You're literally just making two more calculations on top of what you would be doing normally. You total per level already, just add a *0.8 to them and you have your extraneously time wasted calculations for an extra 10 presses on a calculator.

I don't understand the point of the deterrent. An Elf who went Wizard 20 is infinitely stronger than an Elf who went Barbarian 2/Fighter 18 and got the Favored Class penalty. What are we deterring here, exactly?

The only point, then, is if we want to encourage certain races to focus on certain classes, if we feel that this is important for worldbuilding and lore. I don't think that's necessary either.

The deterrent is to not multiclass with uneven levels. You can be a fighter 3/rogue 2 without penalty easily enough. They just don't want you pulling a fighter 4/rogue 1 unless one is a favored class.

Exactly. And what about worlds where elves do NOT have a penchant, biologically or culturally, for wizardry? Or where Dwarves are almost entirely savage people leaning towards barbarians? Even changing WHICH class is the favored class for a race doesn't really help. It's not more fun for the players, it doesn't ACTUALLY encourage choices which tie mechanics to the narrative, and it doesn't provide any aid to the DM.

Pathfinder providing actual BENEFITS to race/class combinations is much better, by far.

Then you make your own variants. I'm not defending the multiclass penalty. I just don't think it's actually all that big a deal.

[pabelfly]

The deterrent is to not multiclass with uneven levels. You can be a fighter 3/rogue 2 without penalty easily enough. They just don't want you pulling a fighter 4/rogue 1 unless one is a favored class.

I'll ask a different way.

Let's say you're DM, and I'm playing at your table with other people. We're level 3, I come with an Elf that's Barbarian 1/Fighter 2. I have no multiclassing penalty

After some time, I reach level 4. I decide to go Barbarian 1/Fighter 3. I now have a 20% multiclassing penalty.

Out of three possible groups at the table - myself, you as DM, or anyone I'm playing with, whose experience at the table is improved with me having an experience penalty, and how?

[Fizban]

I don't remove the favored/excessive multiclassing rules. . . but I also don't explicitly enforce them either. I think they can have their place as a deterrent or outright penalty, but realistically I'm not not going to approve a character that's offending me enough to enforce them so it doesn't matter. The funny thing is that the multiclass penalty doesn't penalize excessive multiclassing- it penalizes an excessive gap between the levels of your classes.

But most multiclass characters end up with dips surrounding a class that can probably be argued as an appropriate "favored" class for their race* (if they're not already playing something with an "any" designation) so the main class is ignored and the dips are all within range of each other, or a spread of classes at similar levels (your cleric 3/wizard 3 or rogue 3/barb 2/fighter 2, etc). So the multiclassing penalty becomes more of a sequencing problem, which is most likely to conflict with taking your high-skill classes at the levels you want to hit your skill thresholds, and I think having to sequence your skilled class levels is already a more interesting multiclassing conundrum than avoiding the multiclassing penalty.

Also none of this applies to prestige classes, and there are PrCs which can be taken at 1st level, so there's even more ways to dodge it.

*Based on the fluff and number of different types of elves, you can justify essentially anything with magic as "favored" for some sort of elf.

The only time I've ever run into the multiclassing penalty was once playing Neverwinter Nights. And even then, the way those games limit you to a maximum of three classes total is a much more likely problem.

[Darg]

Out of three possible groups at the table - myself, you as DM, or anyone I'm playing with, whose experience at the table is improved with me having an experience penalty, and how?

You're the one making the choice to increase your fighter level instead of your barbarian level. I think the appropriate analogue would be "walking through a fire". Are you doing it just because? Or do you think it's worth being ⅘ths of a level behind? As a DM it doesn't hurt me as it just takes me 10 more seconds every encounter, big deal. As a player it doesn't hurt me because I'm making the conscious choice to do something like that. As another player it doesn't hurt me either, spending xp is something we do all the time so levels get janky anyways.

The rules aren't always there to improve or enhance your experience. Sometimes they are there to make you make tough decisions.

The only time I've ever run into the multiclassing penalty was once playing Neverwinter Nights. And even then, the way those games limit you to a maximum of three classes total is a much more likely problem.

NWN2 lets you have 4 classes, but you are limited to level 30 instead of 40. You can still get to max level, just a bit slower with a 3 class penalty.

[holbita]

I actually like the rule, helps with avoiding some of the "Cleric 1" or "Initiator 1" dips thrown it just because... I'm not a fan of those so I like that. And also makes it so that if you want to do something like that you go for a race with a favored class that allows you to do it... and at least in our table that has translated to a lot of other races having their spotlight instead of the expected ALL humans.

A few games ago we had someone playing the swift scion bow from unearthed arcana, they needed a small race that had fighter as favored class due to their build... and suddenly we had a Xvart (Dragon Magazine 339) in the game because it fitted perfectly in the build. You don't see these kind of things if you don't play with favored classes.

[pabelfly]

You're the one making the choice to increase your fighter level instead of your barbarian level. I think the appropriate analogue would be "walking through a fire". Are you doing it just because? Or do you think it's worth being ⅘ths of a level behind? As a DM it doesn't hurt me as it just takes me 10 more seconds every encounter, big deal. As a player it doesn't hurt me because I'm making the conscious choice to do something like that. As another player it doesn't hurt me either, spending xp is something we do all the time so levels get janky anyways.

The rules aren't always there to improve or enhance your experience. Sometimes they are there to make you make tough decisions.

How are Favored Class rules like walking through a fire in any way at all? Taking fire damage from going into a fire is expected and reasonable. We understand the logic of why we take damage, there's some attempt at simulating the real-world of fire burning things through game rules. What situation are the Favored Class rules simulating? What is the underlying logic behind the rule?

Or, here's a better question: what do you think the designers intended by implementing the concept of Favored Classes?

And the example of Barbarian 1/Fighter 3...

Human Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead
Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead.
Half-Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead.
Elf Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no, you need to take a 20% penalty for that one.

Favored Classes wouldn't stop me from doing Barbarian 1/Fighter X build, it just means I have to spend five seconds picking another race to do what I want.

[RedMage125]

The rules aren't always there to improve or enhance your experience. Sometimes they are there to make you make tough decisions.

So if a rule DOESN'T improve ANYONE'S experience (and I mean the experience of the people at the table, not XP), and it's a detriment to the fun of some...why keep the rule?

[lylsyly]

Favored Class was the 1st 3E rule our table dumped ;-)

[Darg]

How are Favored Class rules like walking through a fire in any way at all? Taking fire damage from going into a fire is expected and reasonable. We understand the logic of why we take damage, there's some attempt at simulating the real-world of fire burning things through game rules. What situation are the Favored Class rules simulating? What is the underlying logic behind the rule?

Or, here's a better question: what do you think the designers intended by implementing the concept of Favored Classes?

And the example of Barbarian 1/Fighter 3...

Human Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead
Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead.
Half-Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no problem, go ahead.
Elf Barbarian 1/Fighter 3... no, you need to take a 20% penalty for that one.

Favored Classes wouldn't stop me from doing Barbarian 1/Fighter X build, it just means I have to spend five seconds picking another race to do what I want.

You call it the favored class rule, but it's actually a multiclass general rule with favored class exceptions. I'm thinking you see 20% and are just assuming you'll be 20% behind in levels. Crafting items and casting XP cost spells will generally put you further behind than the multiclass penalty unless you avoid them. You can still do what you want without really being harmed by it.

So if a rule DOESN'T improve ANYONE'S experience (and I mean the experience of the people at the table, not XP), and it's a detriment to the fun of some...why keep the rule?

Because it doesn't actually harm anyone's experience unless they become obsessive over the fact that they are losing XP. Do you remove XP components just because they don't "improve" anyone's experience? It's the same concept, just more generally applied and necessitates long term planning.

[Remuko]

Do you remove XP components just because they don't "improve" anyone's experience? It's the same concept, just more generally applied and necessitates long term planning.

Yes actually! :) The group I used to play with 15 years ago never used exp penalties, or exp (or material components) for spells, and no one ever that I can remember even attempted item crafting but we probably would have handwaved the exp cost there too, or converted it to additional money cost.

[RedMage125]

Because it doesn't actually harm anyone's experience unless they become obsessive over the fact that they are losing XP. Do you remove XP components just because they don't "improve" anyone's experience? It's the same concept, just more generally applied and necessitates long term planning.

First of all, it does. It's not fun to arbitrarily get less XP than the other people at the table for the same encounters, and possibly level up slower.
It's not fun for the DM to have to calculate xp a bunch of different ways.
Unfun things are not good experiences.

And yes, I also remove XP costs and use PF1e's item creation rules when I run 3.5e.

So even by your metric, I'm at least consistent.

[Darg]

Yes actually! :) The group I used to play with 15 years ago never used exp penalties, or exp (or material components) for spells, and no one ever that I can remember even attempted item crafting but we probably would have handwaved the exp cost there too, or converted it to additional money cost.

I guess that's one way to get free wishes.

First of all, it does. It's not fun to arbitrarily get less XP than the other people at the table for the same encounters, and possibly level up slower.
It's not fun for the DM to have to calculate xp a bunch of different ways.
Unfun things are not good experiences.

I honestly don't see the problem. Is this one of those "pain point" issues that just because something is tedious or boring it just needs to be flat out removed to be considered "fun" gameplay? Because I would wholly disagree. It's not fun having to manage inventory space and weight, or even watching your wealth deteriorate due to how arrows get destroyed. But we do it anyways because it makes all of the excitement and fun when you manage to get the loot back to sell or find several quivers of enhanced arrows all the sweeter.

And yes, I also remove XP costs and use PF1e's item creation rules when I run 3.5e.

So even by your metric, I'm at least consistent.

Probably level loss doesn't exist for you either and that's ok. We can each find fun in different aspects of games. I think we can all mostly agree on what constitutes what isn't fun in the game. The part we disagree about is whether those moments that aren't fun bring value to the experience. We all have different values and live different lives. I find that the manipulation of XP is a valuable part of the game that increases the value of XP. Being guaranteed something does a poor job of making you want to protect and sustain what you do have. The threat of level loss is enough for players to not want to die. Yes, it sucks when you do, but the outcome is that you learn to be less reckless and try to protect your life.