Barbarian/monk?

[candidus_cogitens]

The character concept is this: He's a human from a barbaric culture, and thus has the fast movement, rage, and familiarity with martial weapons. But as he matured, he found that in order to truly develop his personal strength, he needed discipline. This realization comes about as a result of suffering a defeat due to his clumsy raging. This led to further changes in his outlook on life. He changed from chaotic to lawful. From then on, he would try to resist the impulse to give in to his rage. His rage would only come out in dire circumstances.

Does this sound far-fetched?
What weapon(s) should he use?
Deity?

 

[Terraism]

I like the idea, quite a bit - it sounds well-thought out from a character perspective, which is always a good thing. As far as weapon, I'd suggest that he just go with the monk's unnarmed attack, once he gets there - I could definitely see a barbarian just going for unarmed brawls, anyway. As far as a diety - what campaign world are you playing in? In Greyhawk I seem to remember some god of lawful studies & monks near the end of the gazeteer, but I don't have it with me and can't remember his name. Thinking it started with an "X" though.

 

[Zappo]

From a rules perspective (feel free to ignore at will), becoming not chaotic means that you lose your rage ability.

 

[mkletch]

Many people axe the alignment requirements on many core classes. But that is really a campaign decision. I agree, it is a good idea - the story should trump the rules on occasion. Perhaps some mitigating factor like the DM chooses you next feat by what he thinks is appropriate for this character development, or an XP penalty for a few levels, or something like that.

Good luck,

Fletch!

 

[Hygric]

Zappo is right. A barbarian who becomes a monk looses their barbarian angry goodness, but a monk who beomes a barb looses none of their monkey goodness. My last greyhawk campaign had one PC in it who was a 3rd monk, 12th barbarian in it at the end of the campaign. That character worked really well.

And before anyone asks, yes, she did have a great background to explain being a monk / barbarian.

 

[Ruvion]

But which came first? The monk or the barbarian?

 

[thegreatbuddha]

Doesn't mesh with your character concept, but I always wanted to play a Barb/Monk/Drunken Master. DM wouldn't let me. He didn't even look at the 12 page background I wrote

 

[kengar]

Completely IMHO and house rule, but if someone wants levels of Barbarian or Sorcerer IMC, they have to be taken from 1st. Though I would allow a Barb/Sorc multiclass. To me, you can't go "learn" how to be a barbarian; and sorcery (v. wizardry) is an innate talent that appears spontaneously (think "X-men"). So my house rule is you either start as a Barbarian (or Sorcerer) or you don't take those classes.

 

[Jolly Giant]

No XXXXXXX way I'd allow such a character in my campaign!

I'd say it's probably the worst case of munchkin character creation I ever saw. Thank you PHB for expressly forbidding such a consept! The monk must be lawful and the barbarian must be chaotic, what more do you need to know? No two classes are less compatible, rules-wise or conscept-wise!

 

[Zhure]

I had a half-orc ex-Barbarian/Monk. He was often ashamed of his past mindless rages.

Greg