I never understood the point of this. I could live with the alignment restriction and I'm just going to houserule over this if it stays, but I really don't see how this silly multiclass restriction staying in the Paladin class is adding any fun or balance to the class. I just think that it is totally unecessary.
|
I never understood the point of this. I could live with the alignment restriction and I'm just going to houserule over this if it stays, but I really don't see how this silly multiclass restriction staying in the Paladin class is adding any fun or balance to the class. I just think that it is totally unecessary.
I'm in agreement on this one, and really, the class is solid enough now that leaving the class has its own punishment built in-loss of abilities from the class itself. I'm not sure I'd want to multiclass away from this version in the first place.
It seems to be a pointless "you have to be lawful, and lawful people don't multiclass" drivel. I can safely state this because all the classes that have it are manditorily lawful.
Good isn't stupid, and lawful isn't hidebound.
|
I too am looking for some clarification on this rather limiting rule. It is too limiting. A small list of possible exceptions (cleric and monk are a great starting place) would go some way to making the class a little more flexible. What does everyone else think?
EDIT: The Dragonstar setting lists their paladin as being akin to a member of a special forces unit (they are the elite, the best of the best), which I can totally see. But even in a special forces team, there are different MOS' (Military Occupational Specialties). A limited ability to multiclass would kind of reflect this line of thinking.