LazarX, tell us about those incredibly overpowered Warlocks of yours.
Watch out! You're just begging someone to play a bard 5/monk 5/warlock 5/barbarian 5... that would be STOOPID broke!
I can sympathize with disappointment here, though I`m personally not impacted - Monk/Barb multiclassing still works the OTHER way (i.e. 1st level Monk, become Chaotic and continue in Barbarian, e.g. tribal kid abducted/captured/purchased and trained by Monk order, who turns his back on the Monks when he discovers the truth... still getting Stunning Fist, IUS and another Feat like Imp. Grapple, and +2 all Saves). If taking the Naked Barbarian variant, WIS to AC should still work as well and you could take many more Monk levels and still be effective.
Ultimately, it doesn`t seem too surprising. Obviously the RAI was always intended to work like this, that specific text just didn`t get copied over from 3.5, and the RAW was just tidied up to match how Paizo intended it to work all along.
It WOULD seem fair for PFS Organized Play to allow Barbarian/Monk multiclasses with more than 2 levels of Barb and more than 1 level of Monk to re-build in light of this... But that isn`t a Core Rules issue, but for the PFS coordinator to decide.
|
Yin/Yang, light/dark, staples of the "Eastern Monk" philosophies, in general.Aren't all those philosophies about balance?
You can't have the yin without the yang, the light without the dark? Why can't self-control give way to rage occasionally? There's an archetype for the monk that lets him get drunk and fight differently/better. If getting drunk isn't losing control, raging shouldn't be either.
If you belive this you realy do not understand what Yin and Yang are. The short of it is thay are equal and opsite forces. Thay require a balanced and controled mind to keap them in check. A haromus mind is controled with training. Losing controld in futal Japan or at any time China wold often result in your beheading. Becous thay though you where sick with madness.
Rage in any form means a lack of the control nesacary to keap yin and yang in balance.
...And alcoholism is an unbalanced response/symptom of elements out of balance.
Giving arguments for or against the flavor here is pointless as debating Paladin aligment requirements. Paizo is just continuing the 3.5 approach to the subject, that Rage is inherently chaotic, and thus unavailable to Lawful Monks.
Leaving the favored alignments of Barbarian involves giving up more class features than doing likewise for the Monk. Of course, to keep most of the abilities of the Monk you need to not wear any armor, which is the core assumption of most classs (though the `naked` Barbarian variant works well doing this). Any Barbarian can still become Lawful enough to become a Monk and take several levels (while not Raging), and later lapse back to Chaotic and once again Rage. They are just supressing their Rage the entire time they are Lawful.
The monastic combat trance is a mental state so rigorously controlled that the body no longer feels pain. Wounds that would normally kill are instead ignored, the very blood flow restricted through sheer discipline, until that mental state ends and the practitioner dies of his injuries.
The rage mechanic works great for this. The monk class doesn't.
Allowing barbarian and monk to work together would be a houserule. It is not an unreasonable one by any means, but it is still definitely a houserule.
And...so what?
Who here actually plays RAW 100%? Anybody? No?
All DMs have their own houserules, and they should be discussed prior to play if possible. This is no different. Players should come to the table knowing that the rules as written are but guidelines. The default, yes, but mutable to fit the group's playstyle.
One person's interpretation is another person's house rule.
One of the many reasons why I don't like to consider interpretations to be house rules.
A house rule, to me, is when you KNOW you are changing the rules form their norm for a specific reason. An interpretation is a belief that a rule works a certain way.
** spoiler omitted **
Was there something wrong with barbarian/monks that they had to be effectively killed? One of my players is going to throw a fit (maybe even quitting) when he finds out that his orc barbarian/monk has had its balls cut off.
How exactly do you "forget" to rage? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
EDIT: I know some of you are smirking at the very idea of a barbarian/monk, but the character was roleplayed quite well and is well-liked by the entire party. This is meant to be a serious discussion. I'm not just dicking around for fun.
I think it is an RP issue that ignores mechanics, and I can see why it is there, kind of like how the RP restrictions on a pally affect his powers. I would personally let a barbarian or monk break the alignment rule if the RP/background story was cool enough though.
|
Some classes just have alignment restrictions, like it or not. Why can't you have paladins of non-lawful deities? The same reason you have lawful monks and non lawful barbarians.
Alignment never really made sense, what is good and evil? However in game terms it makes things simple. Orcs are evil, killing them is fine. The same simple logic is applied to Rage being an expression of chaotic or non-lawful behaviour.
The barbarian class description states: "For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know."
The monk class description states "For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield— it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind."
There are many examples that don't fit these narrow perameters, but these are what the current rules are based around, and the hangover of alignment restriction. They represent opposites in mental state and are not really compatible. In moving to one you lose the other...
Some classes just have alignment restrictions, like it or not. Why can't you have paladins of non-lawful deities?
Well, Sune from Forgotten Realms is CG and she has Paladins.
Also, see Paladins of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana.
Going bat s**& crazy and killing all foes until you stop fighting heaving gasps of air and letting the red haze of your enemys doom doesnt mix at all.
The monastic combat trance is a mental state so rigorously controlled that the body no longer feels pain. Wounds that would normally kill are instead ignored, the very blood flow restricted through sheer discipline, until that mental state ends and the practitioner dies of his injuries.
Yeah, doesn't mix at all, does it? Oh, wait.
Rage, monastic fighting trance. Exact same mechanic.
I removed some posts that were needlessly antagonistic.
Also, the 'Hi Welcome' stuff needs to stop. It serves no other point than to be insulting.
The same way you'd forget that barbies must be chaotic
Wow, I never knew. Granted, I never had any Barbies, and I didn't grow up with any sisters, and He-Man was more my cup of tea, so I don't know any more about Barbie than what you saw in commercials on Saturday mornings between cartoons, but I wouldn't have thought they had to be non-conformist!
I'm not a friend of alignment getting in the way.
That having been said, I don't like monk/barbarians. They shouldn't be. Nothing to do with alignment and everything to do with how the classes are portrayed:
Monks have pretty strong self-discipline. They're the Weird Metaphor For Being Completely Centred (use whatever metaphor you want - yin/yang, leaf in the wind, true mastery of the Void, whatever). They get saddled with a must be lawful alignment restriction because lawful is close to that.
I personally won't require any monk to follow all laws to the letter. I won't penalise any character who plays a rebel monk. That monk will still need a strong discipline, but they don't have to refrain from stealing or murdering just because they're monks. They can level whole villages - as long as they are doing it in a calm, reserved manner ;-)
Barbarians are about letting the wild animal loose. That primal essence of wrath. They give in to a wild berserker frenzy, throwing caution to the wind to attack with a ferocity so intense that they become stronger, albeit at the cost of some of their protection.
I personally don't like the name barbarian too much, since it implies someone uncivilised, someone belonging to a barbarian tribe (there can be city-dwelling warriors-with-the-barbarian-class and barbarian tribesmen with other classes). I'd prefer berserker. I might even allow them to become lawful if they can decide when to loose themselves in the killing frenzy.
I'd still not allow barbarian/monks. And if I did, a lot of the monk's abilities would stop working whenever the character flew into his rage.
I don't consider barbarian rage to be the same as battle trance, either.
Battle rage is giving in to wildness to the point where injuries mean nothing, you become reckless and gain superhuman strength you use to attack enemies with great brutality.
Battle trance is entering an altered state quite different from rage: You tune out all distractions and empty your mind of stray thoughts. I wouldn't use the normal rage bonuses for that (i.e. bonus to strength, constitution and will saves, as well as a penalty to AC), but something else (along the lines of bonus to dexterity and will saves).
I'd have a different set of battle trance powers (the rage powers barbarians get mostly build on the feral concept).
I might allow a variant monk who gets a battle trance power (similar to rage but more like what I described above).
I removed some posts that were needlessly antagonistic.
Also, the 'Hi Welcome' stuff needs to stop. It serves no other point than to be insulting.
I only visit a few boards, so forgive me if this a "duh" question, but what's the deal with 'Hi Welcome'? Is that Inter-tubes code for something?
|
I only visit a few boards, so forgive me if this a "duh" question, but what's the deal with 'Hi Welcome'? Is that Inter-tubes code for something?
It's a stupid meme that started over on the D&D Online forums used by people who are too lazy to formulate an actual reply to something. It's also used to denote things that are supposed to be obvious.
Example:
NewGuy: I find the community here is full of jerks!
50 other people: Hi Welcome
In essence, I view it as a lazy troll's way to troll without having to employ what little gray matter it may possess.
I see they don't allow barbarians to retain rage after going lawful, but where does it say I lose my monk abilities from going neutral? I can still play my monk levels first and then take my barbarian levels second after my alignment change to neutral right?
it does say under monk:
Ex-Monks
A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
So why not just take the levels you want in monk first then start a crime spree until you're neutral?
Matt
Just do a small house rule that changing "official" rules won't impact characters. My cleric got a pass on heavy armor when the big book came out.
I know it sounds like "OK, I'll let you go this time," but don't let other people's mistakes ruin your fun.
I'm not sure why, but this reminds me of 1st ed. when changing character classes meant you could never advance in that class again, and if you used any of that class' abilities you got no xp. Maybe in another thirty years there will be no alignments. (final-frickin'-ly)
Pathfinder has done a LOT to distinguish itself and deepen the classes from D&D3.5. One of the ways they did this was via the Barbarian rage powers.... In my opinion, as long as a Barbarian has the "clarity of mind" rage power, that to me suggests that he is in control of his rage... clarity of mind should remove the non-lawful restriction.
Perhaps you could substitute another penalty instead of the loss of rage powers? If the player could come up with a creative alternative and you were okay with it as GM, it would add to the player's experience and probably provide some cool RP hooks that the player would be really invested in.
To be honest, if one of my players had a cool idea that added to the game, then I would be inclined to let them make a change as long as they were consistent with its implementation.
I don't consider barbarian rage to be the same as battle trance, either.
Except that, as the game rules stand, rage is the only way to represent the battle trance, so mechanically they're one and the same. Hence the monk/barbarian as a cohesive, internally-consistent class concept.
I don't consider barbarian rage to be the same as battle trance, either.Except that, as the game rules stand, rage is the only way to represent the battle trance, so mechanically they're one and the same. Hence the monk/barbarian as a cohesive, internally-consistent class concept.
Ok, but just because it's mechanically the same doesn't mean it is the same power. It wouldn't be the first time two powers are exactly the same mechanically withot actually being the sme power.
Ok, but just because it's mechanically the same doesn't mean it is the same power. It wouldn't be the first time two powers are exactly the same mechanically withot actually being the sme power.
Mechanically the same, using the same class, means that a monk/barbarian not only isn't an "inherently contradictory" combination, but rather one that makes perfect sense. If you wanted to take the Barbarian class and rename it the "Trancer" and then change the name of rage to "battle trance," then the truth of the matter is that you're still playing a daggone Barbarian, even if it's not representing a barbarian.
|
Ok, but just because it's mechanically the same doesn't mean it is the same power. It wouldn't be the first time two powers are exactly the same mechanically withot actually being the sme power.Mechanically the same, using the same class, means that a monk/barbarian not only isn't an "inherently contradictory" combination, but rather one that makes perfect sense. If you wanted to take the Barbarian class and rename it the "Trancer" and then change the name of rage to "battle trance," then the truth of the matter is that you're still playing a daggone Barbarian, even if it's not representing a barbarian.
This is why the name of mechanical constructs in the game are both incredibly important, and totally meaningless. :) A bad name can cause all sorts of misapprehensions about what a mechanic can represent - unfairly limiting it or steering players down a path that isn't really required (Thief class) - and attaching too much importance to the name of a mechanical construct in the game can cause problems while roleplaying.
"Okay, my samurai wins initiative, draws her sword and slices you for ::rolls dice:: 20 damage."
"What? She's only got a longsword! How does that work?"
"Well, she's got 3d6 sneak attack and you were flat footed..."
"Rogues can't be samurai!"
"Sure they can. She's an honorable warrior whose mechanics happen to be 5 levels in the rogue class. She got the drop on you totally fairly."
|
I only visit a few boards, so forgive me if this a "duh" question, but what's the deal with 'Hi Welcome'? Is that Inter-tubes code for something?It's a stupid meme that started over on the D&D Online forums used by people who are too lazy to formulate an actual reply to something. It's also used to denote things that are supposed to be obvious.
Example:
NewGuy: I find the community here is full of jerks!
50 other people: Hi WelcomeIn essence, I view it as a lazy troll's way to troll without having to employ what little gray matter it may possess.
And here I thought people were being friendly to newbies...
Mechanically the same, using the same class, means that a monk/barbarian not only isn't an "inherently contradictory" combination, but rather one that makes perfect sense. If you wanted to take the Barbarian class and rename it the "Trancer" and then change the name of rage to "battle trance," then the truth of the matter is that you're still playing a daggone Barbarian, even if it's not representing a barbarian.
Except that the barbarian isn't just the rage power. That's a drawback (or benefit) of a class-based system in which the class determines initial access to weapon skills, armor skills, general skills, attack bonus, and other things as well. Taking the classes as a whole, I do see the barbarian and monk as being incompatible. That isn't to say I would oppose a monk-friendly prestige class that used a mechanic similar to rage, just that I wouldn't link it up with the rest of the barbarian's mojo and call it monk-friendly.
|
|
Except that the barbarian isn't just the rage power. That's a drawback (or benefit) of a class-based system in which the class determines initial access to weapon skills, armor skills, general skills, attack bonus, and other things as well. Taking the classes as a whole, I do see the barbarian and monk as being incompatible.
I do not see anything in the skill lists or weapon/armor proficiencies that make them incompatible. BAB is an invisible measure of combat power, so I don't see it excluding classes from each other. I really do not understand your statement.
"Okay, my samurai wins initiative, draws her sword and slices you for ::rolls dice:: 20 damage.""What? She's only got a longsword! How does that work?"
"Well, she's got 3d6 sneak attack and you were flat footed..."
"Rogues can't be samurai!"
"Sure they can. She's an honorable warrior whose mechanics happen to be 5 levels in the rogue class. She got the drop on you totally fairly."
Well done!
Sune does have paladins, they are still lawful good.Some classes just have alignment restrictions, like it or not. Why can't you have paladins of non-lawful deities?Well, Sune from Forgotten Realms is CG and she has Paladins.
Also, see Paladins of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana.
Yeah, and Sune isn't, so not all paladins follow lawful deities. And Paladins of Freedom are Chaotic. It's very clear that there are examples of the holy warrior templar types that are NOT lawful.
Yeah, and Sune isn't, so not all paladins follow lawful deities. And Paladins of Freedom are Chaotic. It's very clear that there are examples of the holy warrior templar types that are NOT lawful.Sune does have paladins, they are still lawful good.Some classes just have alignment restrictions, like it or not. Why can't you have paladins of non-lawful deities?Well, Sune from Forgotten Realms is CG and she has Paladins.
Also, see Paladins of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana.
Sigh this again. Yes Sune is CG but she is the one and only exception in FR. And why is she that exception? Because she is not only the goddess of love but marriage as well. She knows well about oaths , vows and life long commitment.
She will hold a paladin to his LG vows. No matter her being CG, she will enforce his oath and his code. She will allow him to fall for violating it.
This and only this is why she is an exception.
Well done!
"Okay, my samurai wins initiative, draws her sword and slices you for ::rolls dice:: 20 damage."
"What? She's only got a longsword! How does that work?"
"Well, she's got 3d6 sneak attack and you were flat footed..."
"Rogues can't be samurai!"
"Sure they can. She's an honorable warrior whose mechanics happen to be 5 levels in the rogue class. She got the drop on you totally fairly."
Yes, indeed. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. Refusal to see past a class' stereotypical image is nothing more than a lack of imagination, as near as I can tell.
I do not see anything in the skill lists or weapon/armor proficiencies that make them incompatible. BAB is an invisible measure of combat power, so I don't see it excluding classes from each other. I really do not understand your statement.
Thank you -- I'm also at a loss. And I sure loved my barbarian/paladin!
Raises hand I played a paladin/barbarian.
Yes, indeed. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. Refusal to see past a class' stereotypical image is nothing more than a lack of imagination, as near as I can tell.Well done!
"Okay, my samurai wins initiative, draws her sword and slices you for ::rolls dice:: 20 damage."
"What? She's only got a longsword! How does that work?"
"Well, she's got 3d6 sneak attack and you were flat footed..."
"Rogues can't be samurai!"
"Sure they can. She's an honorable warrior whose mechanics happen to be 5 levels in the rogue class. She got the drop on you totally fairly."
It seems like game designers are forcing this so called "lack of imagination" on us more and more these days.
I'm in favor of the leveling restriction (and considered it already in place from the Barbarian class alignment requirements). I was fine with the rage being allowed, but I don't care all that much.
Monk --> Barb makes more sense raging than Barb --> Monk.
Inner peace makes it hard to hulk out.
Get angry, get mean and lay the smack down - yes,
..but 'foaming at the mouth, eyes bulging, tendons spasming' RAGE?
Hell no.
I like the idea of 'opposite mind sets' and the restriction it incurs - the monk is all about finding his/her/it's centre while the barbarian is about losing it.
Makes sense to me!
It also makes sense that one class could lead to the other - however, just because it's possible doesn't mean it has to be mechanically advantageous.
..and for the record, I have also played a paladin/barbarian - we created a religious order for mentally unstable warriors (barbarians) who subscribe to a strict ordered lifestyle and code of conduct so as to help them with their RAGE issues.
So, aye, houserule/homebrew a reason for letting your player stay as a fully functioning barbarian/monk if it keeps everyone happy.
As someone above pointed out, you can somehow play a drunken monk but not one that unlocks his inner beast?So Jackie Chan is okay, but Jet Li (Unleashed) isn't?
Yay! I found an example.
Despite the actor and his unarmed fighting style, I'd consider Unleashed to be about a barbarian, not a barbarian/monk. Arguably, he didn't even have self-control, since he'd attack in any case where his collar was off. Over the course of the movie, he developed more control, probably going from chaotic to neutral. If he had any monk levels, they went the other way - starting off monk and then being trained as a barbarian. Which, as has been noted, works perfectly well.
Given this, I'd say Jet Li is just as viable as Jackie Chan, but neither fit the scope of this debate. ;)
However, it does raise an interesting point. If the monk's powers come from his control and discipline, then why doesn't he lose them when becoming non-lawful? After all, if a former monk goes barbarian, then (according to the opposite mindsets view) he should lose his powers, at the very least when he is raging. RAW, he doesn't. RAI, he doesn't. This tells me that even when changing to an opposite mindset, you can still remember the techniques you used to know and how to work them.
So, even from an "opposite mindset" view, there should be no reason why a barbarian, who is used to techniques that require him to lose control, should forget how after becoming more self disciplined. He might approach the technique differently, just as the ex-monk barbarian would likely approach his formerly high discipline powers. Conclusion: there is no reason an ex-barbarian monk should be unable to rage.
So, even from an "opposite mindset" view, there should be no reason why a barbarian, who is used to techniques that require him to lose control, should forget how after becoming more self disciplined. He might approach the technique differently, just as the ex-monk barbarian would likely approach his formerly high discipline powers. Conclusion: there is no reason an ex-barbarian monk should be unable to rage.
Yep. No reason whatsoever.
So, even from an "opposite mindset" view, there should be no reason why a barbarian, who is used to techniques that require him to lose control, should forget how after becoming more self disciplined. He might approach the technique differently, just as the ex-monk barbarian would likely approach his formerly high discipline powers. Conclusion: there is no reason an ex-barbarian monk should be unable to rage.
I'd argue that there are no techniques to raging - and as soon as the character starts thinking in terms of 'techniques' then... they've lost the ability/intrinsic element of their being that manifests rage.
I.E - Techniques are about classification, quantification and establishing a method to repeatedly guarantee the same result/s.
Raging is primal, emotional, instinctive - it's not a rational process, it doesn't fit within a structured balanced psyche etc. It's about as cerebral as a rabid dog.
It's almost like.. well, heeell, it practically is, a psychological condition/ailment - I think it's safe to say that barbarians are mentally unbalanced..
..as a result, an ex-barbarian could be considered 'cured' - yes they can recall that at one time they would lose it, go crazy, RAGE but now they're 'cured' - for better or for worse.
So, even from an "opposite mindset" view, there should be no reason why a barbarian, who is used to techniques that require him to lose control, should forget how after becoming more self disciplined. He might approach the technique differently, just as the ex-monk barbarian would likely approach his formerly high discipline powers. Conclusion: there is no reason an ex-barbarian monk should be unable to rage.
I'd argue that there are no techniques to raging - and as soon as the character starts thinking in terms of 'techniques' then... they've lost the ability/intrinsic element of their being that manifests rage.
I.E - Techniques are about classification, quantification and establishing a method to repeatedly guarantee the same result/s.
Raging is primal, emotional, instinctive - it's not a rational process, it doesn't fit within a structured balanced psyche etc. It's about as cerebral as a rabid dog.
You've fallen into the "name dictates the flavor" trap. You sir have no imagination! (tongue in cheek)
*shakes fist right back*
So, even from an "opposite mindset" view, there should be no reason why a barbarian, who is used to techniques that require him to lose control, should forget how after becoming more self disciplined. He might approach the technique differently, just as the ex-monk barbarian would likely approach his formerly high discipline powers. Conclusion: there is no reason an ex-barbarian monk should be unable to rage.
I'd argue that there are no techniques to raging - and as soon as the character starts thinking in terms of 'techniques' then... they've lost the ability/intrinsic element of their being that manifests rage.
I.E - Techniques are about classification, quantification and establishing a method to repeatedly guarantee the same result/s.
Raging is primal, emotional, instinctive - it's not a rational process, it doesn't fit within a structured balanced psyche etc. It's about as cerebral as a rabid dog.
You've fallen into the "name dictates the flavor" trap. You sir have no imagination! (tongue in cheek)
*shakes fist right back*
lol you're probably right of course :) - I realise there are many takes on playing a barbarian (viking, homeless angry bum, old lady with an axe to grind etc) I feel that the RAGE (look, it demands BOLD CAPS damnit!) is pretty much 'set'.
Hmm.. tho I wonder.. if we're going with RAGE as 'The divine chorus energising my being' or 'the spirit of my people guiding me into battle' then -- isn't this houserule territory?
I.E - when we start to re-define some basic 'givens' are we not re-building the class/game in our image/to our tastes.. so, essentially homebrewing anyway?
Hmm..
O_o
It's a stupid meme that started over on the D&D Online forums used by people who are too lazy to formulate an actual reply to something. It's also used to denote things that are supposed to be obvious.
Example:
NewGuy: I find the community here is full of jerks!
50 other people: Hi WelcomeIn essence, I view it as a lazy troll's way to troll without having to employ what little gray matter it may possess.
Ah, got it. Thanks, Gene.
That actually confirms a suspicion I had about a particular poster. Off to find a flaming sword....