Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed
- Thread starter Twiggly the Gnome
- Start date
reapersaurus
Explorer
Cast me firmly in the "disappointed" crowd. 
I further agree with the others who are quite concerned about 3.5 from this, and the half-race misinformation campaign that WotC is running.
You will never convince me that the majority of players like the half-races and the multiclassing restrictions of the monk and the paladin.
And those of you who say you don't care either way: you are obviously not 'tied' to what they print in the ruklebooks anyway, so please don't vote on a survey that really doesn't pertain (if you have).
Many people ARE affected by what bonehead decisions Wizards makes.
Don't skew the results, please.
I further agree with the others who are quite concerned about 3.5 from this, and the half-race misinformation campaign that WotC is running.
You will never convince me that the majority of players like the half-races and the multiclassing restrictions of the monk and the paladin.
And those of you who say you don't care either way: you are obviously not 'tied' to what they print in the ruklebooks anyway, so please don't vote on a survey that really doesn't pertain (if you have).
Many people ARE affected by what bonehead decisions Wizards makes.
Don't skew the results, please.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I happen to be in favor of keeping the restrictions.
Suppose, hypothetically, that you have a core class that doesn't let you "come back" after multi-classing.
Suppose (again, hypothetically), that the abilities that class gains at higher levels are more powerful than the abilities other classes - without multiclassing restrictions - gain at higher levels.
Is it fair to balance "better abilities" by putting on the restriction "no multiclassing?" I happen to think so.
Now, let's look at the monk and paladin - I think it's clear that monks gain a ton of nifty abilities as they progress in level - and that (to me) the attraction of a monk at high level is that you're not nearly as dependent upon your items as other classes - your abilities are inherent, rather than dependent upon bonuses from external items. A naked monk can kick the trash out of a naked fighter at similar levels. That means you have abilities that NO MATTER what, the DM can't take away - not with a well-placed Sunder on your blade, not with a silence spell (bards) or by stealing your spell components bag (wiz/sor) or taking your holy focus (cleric/druid) or by denying you flanking bonuses (rogues) or by not using your favored enemy (ranger) or by any other of a host of things. Truly, monks' abilities are by far the LEAST DM-dependent of abilities - which makes them the MOST desirable. Hence, they are, in a sense, the most powerful - because the DM has no way of eliminating them or taking them "out of play" (short of house-ruling them out of the game, of course).
Now, look at the paladin as written. The paladin gets benefits at higher levels that I would consider more powerful than those of other classes - his mount is more powerful than a wizard or sorcerer's familiar. He gets turning ability at third level... don't discount that. His spellcasting, while not monstrously wonkishly impressive, is another nice little boost. For all of these reasons, again, I think the paladin's abilities are a little bit "Better" than a standard class's - and to restrict them to those paladins who dedicate a certain number of consecutive levels to the class helps to balance them out. After all, IMO, the benefits from four levels of paladin (minor spells, a special mount, turning ability, smite ability, immunity to disease, Cha bonus to all saves) are MUCH more desirable than those from four levels of wizard or sorcerer (a lot less hit points, a familiar that is not nearly as powerful as a mount, and minor spells - you're not getting fireballs from 4 wiz or sor levels)... especially when applied to a "fighting class" such as a fighter. To balance that, the restriction that "you must take the 4 levels of paladin in a row" does not seem so heavy-handed. (Paladins' abilities after 4th level are not as impressive, but if I had to pick one class to gain 4 levels' worth of abilities from, paladin would definitely be it).
I welcome those who said, "I don't like it" to offer their response to my opinion - I happen to think it is a valid one, but perhaps I have over/underestimated the relative value of the abilities a monk or paladin gets. How do you maintain game balance in multiclassing when some classes' abillities are much more desirable than others? Is "you can't go back" a bad balancing mechanic? What do you propose instead?
I know WotC has claimed it's a flavor issue - and they may believe that - but to me it is more of a balancing issue than most seem to want to think.
(Yes, I welcome the "un-front-loading" of the ranger).
--The Sigil
Suppose, hypothetically, that you have a core class that doesn't let you "come back" after multi-classing.
Suppose (again, hypothetically), that the abilities that class gains at higher levels are more powerful than the abilities other classes - without multiclassing restrictions - gain at higher levels.
Is it fair to balance "better abilities" by putting on the restriction "no multiclassing?" I happen to think so.
Now, let's look at the monk and paladin - I think it's clear that monks gain a ton of nifty abilities as they progress in level - and that (to me) the attraction of a monk at high level is that you're not nearly as dependent upon your items as other classes - your abilities are inherent, rather than dependent upon bonuses from external items. A naked monk can kick the trash out of a naked fighter at similar levels. That means you have abilities that NO MATTER what, the DM can't take away - not with a well-placed Sunder on your blade, not with a silence spell (bards) or by stealing your spell components bag (wiz/sor) or taking your holy focus (cleric/druid) or by denying you flanking bonuses (rogues) or by not using your favored enemy (ranger) or by any other of a host of things. Truly, monks' abilities are by far the LEAST DM-dependent of abilities - which makes them the MOST desirable. Hence, they are, in a sense, the most powerful - because the DM has no way of eliminating them or taking them "out of play" (short of house-ruling them out of the game, of course).
Now, look at the paladin as written. The paladin gets benefits at higher levels that I would consider more powerful than those of other classes - his mount is more powerful than a wizard or sorcerer's familiar. He gets turning ability at third level... don't discount that. His spellcasting, while not monstrously wonkishly impressive, is another nice little boost. For all of these reasons, again, I think the paladin's abilities are a little bit "Better" than a standard class's - and to restrict them to those paladins who dedicate a certain number of consecutive levels to the class helps to balance them out. After all, IMO, the benefits from four levels of paladin (minor spells, a special mount, turning ability, smite ability, immunity to disease, Cha bonus to all saves) are MUCH more desirable than those from four levels of wizard or sorcerer (a lot less hit points, a familiar that is not nearly as powerful as a mount, and minor spells - you're not getting fireballs from 4 wiz or sor levels)... especially when applied to a "fighting class" such as a fighter. To balance that, the restriction that "you must take the 4 levels of paladin in a row" does not seem so heavy-handed. (Paladins' abilities after 4th level are not as impressive, but if I had to pick one class to gain 4 levels' worth of abilities from, paladin would definitely be it).
I welcome those who said, "I don't like it" to offer their response to my opinion - I happen to think it is a valid one, but perhaps I have over/underestimated the relative value of the abilities a monk or paladin gets. How do you maintain game balance in multiclassing when some classes' abillities are much more desirable than others? Is "you can't go back" a bad balancing mechanic? What do you propose instead?
I know WotC has claimed it's a flavor issue - and they may believe that - but to me it is more of a balancing issue than most seem to want to think.
(Yes, I welcome the "un-front-loading" of the ranger).
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Bendris Noulg
First Post
They might as well keep them...
Most people house-ruled out the restriction, and a few (like me) house-ruled out the classes in question anyway, so why's it matter except to people that want the rule removed and insist on playing the game as-written?
Most people house-ruled out the restriction, and a few (like me) house-ruled out the classes in question anyway, so why's it matter except to people that want the rule removed and insist on playing the game as-written?
Reduce front-loading? Instead of handing the paladin divine grace, turning (which is pretty darn weak for paladins anyway, given that most undead have a CR below or at their HD+turn resistance), divine health, aura of courage, and whatnot all in the first 3-4 levels, spread them out a bit.The Sigil said:
As to your other argument that their higher-level abilities are better than other classes (that's more for monks, though) - well, that's already a disincentive to multiclassing. Every level you take in a non-monk class is another level you have to wait before getting Quivering Palm.
Mercule
Adventurer
The Sigil said:
Personally, I think the balance point here is that by multiclassing, you never gain those higher level, uber-cool abilities.
In other words, allowing multiclassing provides its own balance.
That, of course, assumes that the other class in the equation isn't front-loaded.
Oni
First Post
1. I thought they said that the multi-class restrictions of the paladin and monk were for flavor reason. So really what did they get out of the playtest?
2. Exactly what fans were they getting this feedback from, because from what I've seen they are overwhelmingly in the minority.
2. Exactly what fans were they getting this feedback from, because from what I've seen they are overwhelmingly in the minority.
Nail
First Post
Exactly.Mercule said:
I'd say that the multiclassing mechanic is one of the "Top Five" really cool and well-balanced changes from 2e to 3e. I'm still not sure WotC sees that inherent balancing factor yet.
....Be that as it may, I think we all need to keep in mind that we at ENWorld "live in an ivory tower". That is, we have vast amounts of data and experiences we share, to all of our benefits. We've intellegently discussed countless rule points and fixes....and the best ones have risen to the top of our collective consciousness.
And yet, most gamers have never been to ENworld. Perhaps these are the gamers from which WotC drew the play-testers.
(shrug)
Similar Threads
