Why does the paladin multiclassing rule exist?

[Emirikol]

Why does the paladin multiclassing rule exist?

I'm dumping that one and the monk rule too. Will it overpower a character or something?

jh

 

[Mouseferatu]

Pure flavor. It came about purely because the 3E playtesters felt those classes should be more restrictive and "special." There's no mechanical basis to it.

 

[was]

It's probably to avoid certain multi-classing options that conflict with the paladin idea...the backstabbing rogue/paladin comes to mind....as does the necromancer/paladin

 

[Vegepygmy]

It's probably to avoid certain multi-classing options that conflict with the paladin idea...

Nope. It's for the reason Mouseferatu said.

Absolutely no harm will come from dumping the restrictions.

 

[Amitiel]

I've never used the restrictions and its never been a problem. The closest I got to a problem was a player who tried all his paladin builds in NeverwinterNights and got upset when they didn't work the same way. That said there is one guy who asked so he could have a Paladin/Monk with optional advancments from PHB2 and varius Dragons, it was the most awesome anti-undead machine we ever had. I stopped using undead almost completely because of it.

 

[phindar]

The thorn in my side is the alignment restrictions, particularly when it comes to Rage. (You have to be non-lawful to Rage, you have to be lawful to be a monk or a pallie.) It seems only to exist to neuter Barbarians who multiclass to either of those two classes. I could see it if Rage were some kind of mindless kill-frenzy, or if monks and pallies weren't supposed to be good at knocking heads. I don't know, it might be fun to play a barbarian who mulit's to paladin who then has to atone every time he loses his temper in battle.

 

[Dracandross]

It's probably to avoid certain multi-classing options that conflict with the paladin idea...the backstabbing rogue/paladin comes to mind....as does the necromancer/paladin

I can see why paladin can't be necromancer but I can't understand why not rogue.
Rogue can hit vitals when defending is harder but ho that is dishonorable, like if you hit 'vitals' and behead your opponent dead is dead, R.I.P. Reasoning should lead to ban of criticals on pallies too. And skill selection then rogue skills can be used also in dungeon to spot/disable traps but of course pally has honorable activate them, eh? It's about how you use skills, if they aren't purely evil/chaotic. Besides you can start out as rogue and then proceed to pally anyway making that even more stupid. If the class name had been thief then it's a whole different thing.

Well, I didnt ask if your group had restrictions or not so I went for rogue/pally/shadowbane inqusitor. Its so fun to get +12 ref and evasion, who needs impro evasion anyway!

-Dracandross

 

[robberbaron]

There shouldn't be any stigma to being a Rogue/Paladin (one of my favourite gestalt flavours) as 'backstab' doesn't exist and 'sneak attack' is misleading. 'Precise Strike' seems a more Paladinly descriptor.

 

[nute]

It's probably to avoid certain multi-classing options that conflict with the paladin idea...the backstabbing rogue/paladin comes to mind....as does the necromancer/paladin

Neither of those are prohibited by the rules. Both rogues and necromancers can be Lawful Good.

 

[wayne62682]

Quite frankly because some idiots thought that those classes should be "special" and that you should be penalized for not staying with them. In other words for no good reason at all.