Why does the paladin multiclassing rule exist?

[GoodKingJayIII]

I'd just like throw my hat in with the "There's no reason not to dump that rule" crowd.

 

[Nifft]

Some cows are more sacred than others, I guess.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Drowbane]

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

Paladin? Whats that?

Oh! You mean that cleric PrC in UA? Um, no multiclass issues there.

(my hat of base-class Pally-dens knows no limit!)

 

[werk]

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

I think it's to prevent lil' dip multipclassing for maximum cheese.

A considerable effort was made in the upgrade to 3.5 to prevent front loading and one or two level dips in classes for choice class abilities. It just forces the levels gained in that class to be contiguous unless you waste a feat. At low levels, it's not very important, but later on, with prestige classes and some rather exotic builds, it may come into play.



Most people will probably say they ignore this rule, along with most multiclassing rules, including favored class and xp penalties, but I think most people prefer overpowered characters regardless of balance.

 

[Nail]

I'm dumping that one and the monk rule too.

I've dumped both for the last two campaigns I DMed. It worked fine.

Will it overpower a character or something?

Absolutely not.

 

[Nail]

...but I think most people prefer overpowered characters regardless of balance.

I've not found that to be the case.

....and it wasn't overpowered when I abandoned the Pal and Mnk multiclassing restriction.

FWIW.

 

[werk]

....and it wasn't overpowered when I abandoned the Pal and Mnk multiclassing restriction.

FWIW.

No, I don't think it would be that big of a deal to dump the paladin MC restriction, but if you dump all the MC restrictions, you can start to slide back into 3.0 MC shenanigans.

If anything, I like that they made the LAWFUL ONLY classes restricted. Makes sense, they shouldn't be as flexible as everyone else. It's restrictive, but not debilitating in the least.

 

[Destil]

I think it's to prevent lil' dip multipclassing for maximum cheese.

A considerable effort was made in the upgrade to 3.5 to prevent front loading and one or two level dips in classes for choice class abilities. It just forces the levels gained in that class to be contiguous unless you waste a feat. At low levels, it's not very important, but later on, with prestige classes and some rather exotic builds, it may come into play.

Most people will probably say they ignore this rule, along with most multiclassing rules, including favored class and xp penalties, but I think most people prefer overpowered characters regardless of balance.

You know, nothing about this rule prevents you from dipping into these 'overpowered' multi class combos. In fact the rule encourages it, since if you start out as say a fighter, take 2 levels of monk then go back to fighter you're stuck at 'dip' levels.

Of course a dwarf fighter 2 / cleric 8 / Rogue 8 is perfectly balanced, compared to the half orc at the same levels. What kind of no-self-respect munchkin-loving monty hall DM would let a half-orc do that?

 

[BASHMAN]

There is a feat called Knight Training in ebberon that lets you drop the whole issue of multiclassing as a paladin. Complete Adventurer (I believe) also has various "ascetic" feats that let you multiclass with monk.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

It is the remnant of a sacred cow.

For some classes it makes sense to have an Alignment restriction (Non lawful for the Barbarian, Lawful for Monk and Paladin). But I do not see much real gain in having those restrictions extend to multi-classing.

END COMMUNICATION