Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed

[Green Knight]

Back when I was reading about the playtesters before 3E came out, I noticed that the multiclass restriction came at the suggestion of one of the playtesters.

I'd personally like to throttle that playtester, because those restrictions wouldn't be there, otherwise.

WHY YOU LITTLE-!!!

BTW: Just a joke. I wouldn't actually throttle anyone over this. Just find it annoying that they stuck in that rule on the suggestion of one guy.

 

[maddman75]

Well, they appearantly don't listen to everything playtesters say, or I wouldn't be houseruling Identify...

I'm disappointed. The MC rules do NOTHING except prevent interesting class combinations and characters. How about a monk/sorcerer or psion that calls these abilities 'ki powers'. Nope - once you take one of these you can't go back to monk. Or a paladin/bard, the epitome of the gentleman knight.

I've personally done away with these restrictions as well as the druid weapon and armor restrictions. I also treat everyone's highest level class as their favored for calculating XP penalty. My campaign hasn't come crashing down. We've had two druids, one MCed monk (who sucked), and no MCed paladins. Humans are still the most popular race. True, no one plays half elves, but we never played them anyway .

 

[S'mon]

I dislike the rule, a better rule would be 'multiclassing is with GM permission only'.

Eg IMC there's an Order of warrior-monks who need to be able to multiclass Monk-Fighter, and an Order of sorceress-monks who need likewise, Monk-Sorcerer. There's a famous NPC ex-PC who's clearly a Paladin-Ranger (these things were all developed outside the D&D ruleset). And Paladin-Fighter or Paladin-Cleric seem like obvious class choices to allow.

 

[S'mon]

I'm of the opposite view from most, it seems. For feel, rather than mechanical reasons, I think the multiclass restriction should apply to Druids as well.

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.

Ha ha ha - you do realise THAT isn't against the rule?
The rule just bans your Paladin from taking a level of Fighter, *sigh*.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

As much as I hate the multiclass restriction, it does allow for a nice bit of world-building, by defining different Monk (or Paladin) orders that allow certain multiclass combinations.

I'd still rather they be open multiclass and have the Monk orders be flavor text.

 

[The Sigil]

Without responding to anyone in particular...

Another point on paladins and monks - these are classes which, unlike any other in the game, have an alignment requirement of "lawful" - which does justify to some extent a "dedication" requirement.

Also, I don't think the big issue is so much (at least IMO) multiclassing OUT of a paladin or monk as it is multiclassing INTO a paladin or monk. I am aware that multiclassing OUT of monk (even without the proscription against other classes) is disincented because things like Quivering Palm get delayed a level... but I think much of the problem comes in "frontloaded" classes... the monk's +2/+2/+2 saves, fast movement, unarmed damage, and so forth are overpowered as a second class. Similarly, the paladin's Cha bonus to all saves, divine health, etc. are overpowered as a second class - compare to, say, fighter, where the only bonus is an extra Feat.

Myself, I would like to see some class abilities be treated in much the same way skill points are treated - e.g., "if this is your first character level, you get X, Y, and Z." If it is not your first character level, you get them at levels A, B, and C."

IOW, the problem - ultimately - is IMO one of frontloaded classes. And because the paladin and monk are both frontloaded AND have cool abilities at moderately higher levels, they are among the "best" classes to multiclass into without restrictions - for instance, a sorcerer might take a level of paladin to maximize his use of his Charisma attribute, then continue advancing as a sorcerer. This is currently allowed - but suppose then he comes along a PrC that strikes his fancy - like a bladesinger - and needs a few quick points of BAB? Yes, he could take fighter, but if he keeps adding levels in paladin, he also gets turning (which qualifies him for even more PrCs) and smites, and other stuff - we presume he's not really in need of the fighter's bonus combat feats. Yes, of course, paladin is a more attractive option now.

I dunno. I'm probably talking in circles. Suffice to say I like the restrictions and see them as a lovely way to represent a Lawful class's dedication requirement - after all, when you're "chosen by the Lawful Gods" you can't just go dilly-dallying and do whatever you want - with power comes responsibility to maintain your dedication. I have considered the idea of allowing a paladin to MC as a cleric of the same deity - but even then, I could see "your calling is not to minister - your calling is to smite" and so on.

--The Sigil

 

[Arnwyn]

Many people ARE affected by what bonehead decisions Wizards makes.

Really? Nice try - I don't buy that for a second.

In any case, I'm glad they kept it. A monkey can remove that rule if he/she wants to, so there is no problem with it being there.

If some DM wants to adhere to the rules strictly and then complain about them, then that's their problem, not WotC's.

(Without *some* form of flavor rules, this game would be simply be bland garbage.)

 

[Psion]

Really? Nice try - I don't buy that for a second.

In any case, I'm glad they kept it. A monkey can remove that rule if he/she wants to, so there is no problem with it being there.

I disagree. Sure, you can house rule around it. But one of the major advantages the fundamental "option not restrictions" mindset of 3e brought was a reduction in the necessity of houseruling around wonky restrictions. In shifting from 2e to 3e, I was able to drop about 75% of my houserules.

If some DM wants to adhere to the rules strictly and then complain about them, then that's their problem, not WotC's.

I intend to continue to circumvent the restriction. But those who aren't DMs don't have that luxury, and there are a great many conservative DMs and/or uniformed DMs who think there is some balance boogieman behind this that will clamp down on their players because of it.

(Without *some* form of flavor rules, this game would be simply be bland garbage.)

Some flavor rules, sure. Flavor rules that, if this poll is any indication, 2:1 are against? No.

 

[kingpaul]

I think that only 2 choices is limiting. I chose "disappointed", but I can see some of the logic to the restrictions. However, I like how some of the groups in FR are laid out, they allow freely multi-classing.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Myself, I would like to see some class abilities be treated in much the same way skill points are treated - e.g., "if this is your first character level, you get X, Y, and Z." If it is not your first character level, you get them at levels A, B, and C."

I instituted exactly this sort of rule in my campaign, along with the continuous progression on bab and saves recomended here. (that is to say, instead of adding the saves and bab as presented, your monk3 rogue4 cleric2 has 9 levels of 3/4 bab, 5 levels of good fort and will, 7 levels of good reflex, etc.) I made fast movement the barbarian's '1st level benefit', bardic knowlege the bard's etc. If you didn't take your first level of the class at your first character level, those benifits didn't accrue until the third class level.

Kahuna Burger