Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 806346" data-attributes="member: 2013"><p>I happen to be in favor of keeping the restrictions.</p><p></p><p>Suppose, hypothetically, that you have a core class that doesn't let you "come back" after multi-classing.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Is it fair to balance "better abilities" by putting on the restriction "no multiclassing?" I happen to think so.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>(Yes, I welcome the "un-front-loading" of the ranger).</p><p></p><p>--The Sigil</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 806346, member: 2013"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Retention of Paladin and Monk multiclass restrictions in 3.5ed
Top