Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed

[kingpaul]

I want to play my paladin/cleric, but, for some unknowable reason, this isn't allowed!

Whatever happened to Rule 0? Also, there are some faiths in Fr that allow this freely multiclassing. Frex, I have a paladin/cleric of Torm, who allows freely multiclassing.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yes, there is. Anyone who plays Living Greyhawk (and there are thousands upon thousands of us) has to abide by the Core rules. We don't get a choice about house ruling it. Buy that?

That, I buy.

 

[Agback]

From a game mechanical perspective it just seems insane to allow people to multiclass into Paladin and Monk; if it were allowed, every arcane caster would take one level of monk and every fighter or ranger would take a single level of Paladin.

Then you need a new restriction, because the existing one doesn't prevent that. It only means that after raising their level as a fighter or arcane caster they wouldn't be able to buy a second level of paladin or monk. Which they don't plan to do anyway. Besides which, humans won't even suffer a multiclassing penalty, and neither will the right non-humans witht eh right classes.

If that's what the rule is for, it doesn't work.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Great! Now if they listen to the rest of my opinions they will axe the Sorcerer, disallow Wizard & Bard classes for Dwarves, and bring back other racial restrictions on various classes.

 

[Drunken Master]

i don't know what all the fuss is aboot - if you don't like the restrictions, simply don't use 'em. there's no need to insult the design team, man. they're only trying to make this game we love a little better and easier to run, and they seem to be taking a lot of undeserved heat for it.
personally, i like the restrictions; though i play in the realms and use the looser restrictions presented in the FRCS.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The problems is not with my own campaign where I will instantly throw such a rule out. The problem is with other people's campaigns. If I get stuck with a DM that doesn't throw out the multiclassing restriction, then I'd feel the need to have to beat that DM into submission (whether physically or verbally, most likely the later) until I'm allowed to have my monk character freely multiclass. And quite simply I don't want to have to go through the step of beating someone into submission over something that was only put there for flavour.

 

[Drunken Master]

damn, dude... last i checked this was just a game.
are beatings, verbal or otherwise, really necessary?

 

[Wormwood]

they're only trying to make this game we love a little better and easier to run, and they seem to be taking a lot of undeserved heat for it.

Forcing the (apparent) majority of DMs to make up house rules makes the game better or easier to run?

Mountains out of molehills? Perhaps.

Undeserved heat? Perhaps.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the biggest problem is front-loading.

In practice, I can't see them removing the monk's Wisdom bonus to aC or saving throws at 1st-level; the first would make the low-level monk even more underpowered and the latter probably isn't going to happen, unless they change the saving throw progressions to be similar to those in D20 Modern.

On the other hand, the restriction doesn't prevent the Mnk1/Sorx. If I wanted to take that Wis bonus to AC, I'm not going to take more than one level of monk anyway!

 

[Vocenoctum]

Or a paladin/bard, the epitome of the gentleman knight.

I wanted one of these, but the DM wouldn't relax the non-lawful Bard rule, and the Paladin multiclass restriction.

My problem is that the rules don't compare well.
Rogues can be any alignment, but bards can't be lawful?

Paladin's are more dedicated than Clerics?

The multiclass restriction actually ENCOURAGES the whole "take one level of this class." because you CAN'T go back.

So, an elven wizard can take a level of monk, the problem is that he can't gain any more levels after that. For the people abusing the front loaded nature of the class, they gain everything. For the person with the concept that requires more than simply dipping into the class, they're out of luck.


Also, the problem isn't DMs that think the rule is silly, but keep it anyway and complain. The problem is when you're that player that wants to do something, and your DM says "sorry, but that's the way the rule is written"
You're just out of luck.