Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed

[Olive]

I like there being restrictions on what you can multi-class into (and retain your Paladin or Monk progression), but that's a campaign-specific decision.

thats how I do it... but if you're surprised by the descision, well I'm amazed.

and i really do think that it's a vocal majority. just cos your group agrees with you doesn't mean that everyone else does!

 

[Angcuru]

*Holds holy symbol: dice bag, up to this rule*

BACK! BACK TO THE PITS FROM WHICH YE WERE SPAWNED! BACK I SAY!

 

[Mercule]

Re: Re: Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed

Couldn't care less. I currently ignore that "rule." I'll likely do so in the future.

I guess, despite my "disappointed" vote, I'm really in the same category.

Of course, since I think the paladin makes more sense as a prestige class than a base class, I'm even more indifferent to the "official" position.

Of course, this "rule" makes infinitely more sense than either the weapon familiarity garbage or the fact that rangers still have virtual combat feats (and are forced into a fighting style). Of course, those only make sense after about a pound of crack, so it isn't much of a comparison.

 

[rounser]

So long as they clearly mark it with This rule is for flavour, not for balance then I have no problem with it.

They should have done that with the druid weapon restrictions too...yet another call for a "Design Handbook"...

 

[Mark Chance]

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 every fighter or ranger would be lawful good and every wizard would be lawful? Hardly seems a likely occurence. I permit multiclassing to and from both classes. With 7 players, I have one multiclassed monk and zero multiclassed paladins.

 

[demiurge1138]

I am split on this one. I feel that paladin multiclass restrictions should stay, but not monk ones. I also agree with Fusangite that druid would be an appropriate class to add a restriction to.
Note that other optional products have already addessed this issue. In FR, different monastic and paladin orders have looser restrictions; maybe this will be covered as a sidebar option in 3.5

Demiurge out.

 

[Angcuru]

I really think you should have had a "Line bathroom floor of WotC writers with sharpened d4s to mimic caltrops, coat the toilet seat with axel grease, and then replace their coffee with laxitive power." option in the poll

 

[zoroaster100]

another sacred cow!

I am disappointed by the decision. I think if the rule is for balance reasons they should make that clear, but if it is for flavor only then it goes completely against the spirit of third edition the mantra of options not restrictions for D&D 3.5.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wow. I'm not sure which I find more disappointing, their stance on half elves and half orcs, or their stance on the Paladin and Monk restrictions.

*shakes his head*

 

[Gez]

I had hoped they would use the Monk from OA, which is better (options rather than hard-wired feats like Deflect Arrow, and no multiclass restriction). Nah.

In fact, I begin to feel 3.5 will just have some changes in the Combat section (not real changes, just clarifications); and some spells that have been nixed into uselessness (e.g., haste, which will be great only if you want to suicide your wizard a stupid way).