Multiclassing abuse.

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

If he has a past history that is not up to the code, you have plenty of justification for refusal.

But letting him gain the level, then lose the abilities, as others have suggested, may be a better solution, depending on your goal.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with maddman75.

Spellcasters who multiclass are not actually increasing their power level, although they may be increasing their survivability and flexibility. That is not abusive.

Abusive is when you start seeing 3 or 4 classes. A Ranger1/Barbarian1/Fightern is abusive IMHO.

My personal opinion is just let players have any two core classes they want for their character.

Those Paladin abilities do require one to keep to the Code, of course. That is a vanilla rule issue.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I agree with Information.

A Sorceror should really be able to put that high CHA stat to use other than for spellcasting. They don't get any Charisma-based skills, after all.

Build a prestige class that gives them that CHA bonus to saves, and more CHA skills to play with. Of course, we'd want to balance this class for Sorcerors, since they're the ones who will most often take it, and they're the ones who have the least to give up, they'll probably have to lose at least one level of spellcasting ability.

 

[el-remmen]

I think that is a silly reason to makea prestige class.

A prestige class should be used to fill a niche in a setting, not to just give a PC a chance to max out his use of his high Charisma or whatver score. . .

It is that kind of thing that leads to the inundation of prestige classes we have to deal with now. .

What is so bad about being a high level sorcerer on its own and having the advantage of being able to cast a few spells a crap-load of times?

 

[wolff96]

Abusive is when you start seeing 3 or 4 classes. A Ranger1/Barbarian1/Fightern is abusive IMHO.

I agree in general, but not always. Dismissing anyone that wants to play a severely multi-classed character as being abusive ignores the many people that can and do make sub-optimal choices for role-playing purposes.

A guy I used to play with once ran a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue. His character was nearly useless in a lot of situations. He didn't have the BAB (or armor) to fight, his spells were too low of a level to do much, and his thief abilities were often too low to effect the traps and locks we came across. He picked that set for roleplaying purposes, though, not for min-maxing. It especially makes sense for a Jack-of-all-Trades type character, such as his was. His personality (the character's) revolved on him being able to look out for himself, whatever the situation was.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Abusive is when you start seeing 3 or 4 classes. A Ranger1/Barbarian1/Fightern is abusive IMHO.

I would say it depends on the situation. I'm sure you meant it without saying it, of course.

I have a character, a dwarf, who has 1 level in ranger, 1 level in barbarian, and his other levels in fighter and frenzied berserker. Abusive? I don't think so. To me, it fits his character.

1 level lf ranger for the favored enemy. I chose goblins, since this particular character hates goblins.

1 level of barbarian for raging. This character is a battlerager, and therefpre must be able to rage.

Levels in fighter, for combat training. Battleragers are good warriors.

Levels in Frenzied Berserkers, for rage power. If you look in 2nd edition, the battleragers were one of the best, if not the best, raging kits of all. Its abilities combined with barbarian abilities secure the character as a powerful rager.

The situation is pivotal.