Character dumping class fluff


Creating a Character

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the Monk rules and noticed there wasn't an alignment restriction (and they had gotten tougher on other alignment questions). So, I thought, gee, let's make it a CG "bar fighter" and screw the RP suggestions, multiclass into rogue at second level.

And she's so totally a Cayden Cailyn fangirl.

Seriously, I want to make a HtH character and have always hated monk fluff (no better reason than it's not to my taste).

So my question to you:

Is this idea something that will be killed because I just pointed it out?

Have anyone else any cool and interesting twists in the play tests?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one welcome our roughhousing, fist-fighting, no-nonsense, Chaotic Monk Overlords.


It seems you can go full Brawler, which I like.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Works fine. Seems to be as intended. They seem to have gone with the interpretation that only things involving devotion to a deity have an actual Alignment restriction, which I like.

Prior to the Signature Skill thing I wouldn't have advised multiclassing to Rogue, but honestly, 3 Skills for a Class Feat isn't bad at all...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In PF1 you already had that... the Brawler... I know I'm going t get hate on this... but in essence no alignment restriction goes against any and all lore that monks are based upon...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you look at martial arts films, which are certainly part of the inspiration for the Monk class, you'll find plenty of examples of a "Robin Hood" type character, a disciplined martial artist who fights against corruption, often while wearing a disguise to hide their identity. They're lawful internally, but chaotic good socially.

The Monk is conventionally lawful, and for good reason, but that doesn't mean it has to be baked in as an unbreakable rule. Kerney has taken the freedom in that and used it to build what sounds like an awesome character. Why should the rules prevent that awesome character?


Drill Instructor that drives people to succeed but has no concept of song/dance/performance/etc is one of the best bards I've seen. I love ignoring/destroying expected fluff.


You can also find evil monks in film as well. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon anyone?


Read nearly any Xianxia novel and you'll find plenty of CE cultivators (basically monk class) as antagonists.

The idea of monks being restricted to lawful seems to be (in my opinion) an idealized caricature of the class which fails to account for their wider representation in media. One particular player of mine always hated this in PF1, as they loved the concept of the monk class but hated the alignment restriction which seemed to prevent them from making their favorite characters from novels or manhua.

Overall, I don't think the alignment restriction will be missed, especially since every class other than Paladin has lost their alignment restriction and many wish the same would happen for the Paladin as well.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

When alignment restrictions for classes were put into D&D 3.0 (from which they were carried over into D&D 3.5 and PF1), one intention seems to have been to limit the possible multiclassing options. All subsequent development seems to have been a reaction against these restrictions -- just look at the sheer variety of D&D 3.5 and PF1 options whose sole purpose was to get around class alignment restrictions.


I can't say anything official here, just what I'd rule, but for my buck a nonlawful monk seems fine. A monk who isn't really a monk, but really a barfighter bothers me for a whole other reason: kung fu magic and chi points.

Like if this wasn't a playtest and you were like: I want to make a monk but have them just be a barfighter who punches people, I'd probably respond: well look, in terms of weapons you can't use, armor you can't use, kung-fu powers and all that the monk just doesn't feel like a good fit--how about a barbarian going off the "fury totem" (ie. no totem, just angry)? That feels like it would give you everything you want and also more stuff that would make a good bar brawler like going into blind rages for a couple of rounds, getting woozy for a round, then unloading on another badguy.

You might respond, yeah but I want the better hand to hand damage from the monk. Done I'd say.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The monk weapons and ki powers are both entirely optional. Even if you think neither are appropriate for a brawler, that would just argue you should take other stuff, not that they couldn't be a Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks' alignment restrictions made no great sense in AD&D 1e and they haven't aged well since. Go for it IMO.

In mechanics there are definitely some levels where the monk feats aren't great and stealing some lower level rogue feats makes total sense. About level 12 for example you'd probably prefer evasiveness or skirmish strike.


Yes Kerney! I shall smite thy Chaotic Good Monk for the ruthless murdering of Goblin Dogs as you tore their throats out with your tiny barroom brawler little girl. You heartless monster!!

(LOL Just kidding. Glad you had fun at my playtest.)


Not sure if troll or serious x)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Creating a Character / Character dumping class fluff All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Creating a Character