Barbarian/monk?

[Wolfspider]

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!

You forgot the little winking smiley.

Oh, wait...you weren't really serious were you...?

Were you?

If so, slinging terms like "munchkin" around is in bad form.

 

[Baron Von StarBlade]

Actually Heroes of High Favor: Half-Orcs has a pretty neat concept for a Barb/Monk. . or Monk/Barb. It may be worth picking up to look at.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd probably allow it. Very good description....

Maybe I'd say that I, as a DM, can trigger your rage, though you as a player cannot....that'd probably fit your image of "It comes, but only when I don't want it to..."

I would allow a normal barb/monk as well, though, too....after all, what is Ki Frenzy other than a lawful rage? Same kinda concept could be used to explain the barbarian rage. A synch. A rythm. A clockwork tick-tock of heart and time and nature all coming together in a glorious symphony of strength and endurance.

And, yes, a Barb/Monk would make a *great* bare-fisted fighter. My campaign has a Barbarian/Shaman who, with the few Shaman "martial arts" feats, is a superb brawler. His improved unarmed strike is used to subdue, and also to lash out with critters he may want to grapple when his axes are sundered/broken.

And, yeah, by the rules the Barb looses his rage....if you go with Monk first it means you can keep all the powers, just never gain levels in it again. Of course, that doesn't fit with your concept, but still...

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

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!

Bah. If someone wanted pure munchkin they'd go monk/paladin for all kinds of saving throw goodness. You'll notice there's nothing preventing THAT in the rules.

Barbarians don't have to be chaotic, they just have to be non-lawful. But really, I think just about all the alignment restrictions are pretty silly. "Music can not flow from a lawful heart?" What the heck? I guess Devis didn't have Mrs. Wickers, my 85 year old piano teacher...

 

[Balgus]

i had that idea a couple yeras back- the DM said, "If you can find a way to reason that CC, then I would allow it."

I came up with the same thing you did- a barbarian since birth, he yearns for discipline and order. He meditates to control his inner fire, but every once in a while, he loses control and rages (though not as potent as barb rage). When he regains consciouness, he would lament the dead, and go deeper into meditation to ask for forgiveness...

The DM said that was the biggest load of croc he ever heard. One of the many reasons I left that DM in search of a new group.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

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!

I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that rage is nullified if a character becomes lawful. It is true that a lawful character cannot be a barbarian, but it doesnt say that he loses barbarian abilities if his alignment changes. Compare it to the rules for a Paladin, where it specifically says that you lose your abilities if you become chaotic.

I think these classes are not necessarily conflicting in principle ... ifyou play it creatively. The idea is that rage could be viewed as a way of tapping into your KI. Admittedly, the monk would have to learn to adapt it and bring it within his holistic approach to KI. At that point, the "flavor text" (I hate that phrase) about rage would no longer aptly describe what would be going on, but there is no reason the same phenomenon could not still occur.

 

[Balgus]

candidus:I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that rage is nullified if a character becomes lawful.

Actually, it does explicitly say that if a barb becomes nonchaotic, a barb loses his rage ability. In the pHB, in the barb class description- don't have book with me so cant give you exact page.

 

[Sejs]

I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that rage is nullified if a character becomes lawful. It is true that a lawful character cannot be a barbarian, but it doesnt say that he loses barbarian abilities if his alignment changes

Pg 26. PHB. Under the heading Ex-Barbarians

A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all other benefits of the class (fast movement, uncanny dodge, and damage reduction).


Edit- Additional: Oop, heh. Balgus got it while I was typing it up. Note to self, work faster ^_^

 

[Zhure]

I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that rage is nullified if a character becomes lawful.

From the SRD: "Ex-Barbarians: A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. The barbarian retains all the other benefits of the class. "

 

[Avatar of the North]

Read you own quote, it doesn't saw NON-CHAOTIC, its says a barbarian who becomes LAWFUL loses rage