Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The 'Cultural' Classes: Barbarian & Monk
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Anax" data-source="post: 1980648" data-attributes="member: 19868"><p>To a certain degree, it kind of depends how you want to look at it--and, of course, paladins should probably be on the list as well, probably alongside druids and rangers.</p><p></p><p>My take on it is that multiclassing into one of these *ought* to be predicated on some sort of access to appropriate training, with the possible exception of Barbarian.</p><p></p><p>Barbarian: The name screams "savage from the frozen wastes", but really, this is all about a much more direct fighting style. The barbarian is essentially a model for "fighting with raw power". The chaotic alignment requirement could, in my opinion, also be dropped--I can easily believe in a very very disciplined person using willpower alone to enter a sort of frenzied state. In any case, this does not particularly require that you have a barbaric background. Some examples of reasons a person might enter this class: 1) Experience in war--wars are nasty nasty things and can brink out a kind of berserker rage in a person, 2) Living desperately--same sort of deal here: the character no longer has time to think about the best way to fight--he fights however he has to to survive, 3) Intentional training--in this case, think about someone training at wrestling in an urban setting--focusing on releasing all of his strength in a frenzy, rather than fighting smart. So you can also think of this class as a tactical choice. A fighter must give up his normal focus (gaining techniques) in order to focus on raw power.</p><p></p><p>Monk: This is something that certainly ought to be available at later stages in a character's career. My current monk is a rogue 3/monk 8. She was living on the streets when she tried to mug the wrong person--a high level monk. The monk was impressed by her agility, and she was impressed by him as well, and he managed to convince her to accept training at a monastery. We have another monk in the party as well, a half orc who learned the rudiments of unarmed fighting by observing his captors before escaping from them. He is largely self-trained and fights in ways atypical for a monk. I do think that a certain access to training (whether written, in person, or in a monastery) is appropriate here, but it's really up to the player and the GM how to set this up. And in a world where there are well known monks, it could be simpler than that.</p><p></p><p>Paladin: To be honest, I think this is one of the iffier cases--I've always felt that paladins should need to have a serious calling, and serious training. We play with core rules paladins, but I'd be more comfortable with prestige class paladins. In any case, this is somewhat similar to the case of monks in that intensive training in a martial religious order makes sense for character development--but there are ways around that. Perhaps the character just feels a calling and prays. The same could be said of clerics. When gods can inspire in dreams (not to mention in direct action), anything is possible.</p><p></p><p>Druids and rangers: Similar sort of thing to clerics and paladins, although, of course, there's a certain amount of "likes nature" that has to be dealt with in contrast to the "likes a deity" for paladins and clerics. There's no reason not to allow access to these classes to anyone who has a good concept of what their character should be like.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So that's my take on it--I think *anything* ought to go as long as the player has a good character concept to go with it. (If anything, I think that the existing class restrictions in the RAW are too binding.) In a looser less-RP-oriented gaming group, even a reasonable concept of what the character's classes represent isn't super important. After all, there's a difference between the abilities that a character has and the character itself. So best to treat all the "core" classes as reasonable choices for any character at any time, and save the special restrictions for prestige classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Anax, post: 1980648, member: 19868"] To a certain degree, it kind of depends how you want to look at it--and, of course, paladins should probably be on the list as well, probably alongside druids and rangers. My take on it is that multiclassing into one of these *ought* to be predicated on some sort of access to appropriate training, with the possible exception of Barbarian. Barbarian: The name screams "savage from the frozen wastes", but really, this is all about a much more direct fighting style. The barbarian is essentially a model for "fighting with raw power". The chaotic alignment requirement could, in my opinion, also be dropped--I can easily believe in a very very disciplined person using willpower alone to enter a sort of frenzied state. In any case, this does not particularly require that you have a barbaric background. Some examples of reasons a person might enter this class: 1) Experience in war--wars are nasty nasty things and can brink out a kind of berserker rage in a person, 2) Living desperately--same sort of deal here: the character no longer has time to think about the best way to fight--he fights however he has to to survive, 3) Intentional training--in this case, think about someone training at wrestling in an urban setting--focusing on releasing all of his strength in a frenzy, rather than fighting smart. So you can also think of this class as a tactical choice. A fighter must give up his normal focus (gaining techniques) in order to focus on raw power. Monk: This is something that certainly ought to be available at later stages in a character's career. My current monk is a rogue 3/monk 8. She was living on the streets when she tried to mug the wrong person--a high level monk. The monk was impressed by her agility, and she was impressed by him as well, and he managed to convince her to accept training at a monastery. We have another monk in the party as well, a half orc who learned the rudiments of unarmed fighting by observing his captors before escaping from them. He is largely self-trained and fights in ways atypical for a monk. I do think that a certain access to training (whether written, in person, or in a monastery) is appropriate here, but it's really up to the player and the GM how to set this up. And in a world where there are well known monks, it could be simpler than that. Paladin: To be honest, I think this is one of the iffier cases--I've always felt that paladins should need to have a serious calling, and serious training. We play with core rules paladins, but I'd be more comfortable with prestige class paladins. In any case, this is somewhat similar to the case of monks in that intensive training in a martial religious order makes sense for character development--but there are ways around that. Perhaps the character just feels a calling and prays. The same could be said of clerics. When gods can inspire in dreams (not to mention in direct action), anything is possible. Druids and rangers: Similar sort of thing to clerics and paladins, although, of course, there's a certain amount of "likes nature" that has to be dealt with in contrast to the "likes a deity" for paladins and clerics. There's no reason not to allow access to these classes to anyone who has a good concept of what their character should be like. So that's my take on it--I think *anything* ought to go as long as the player has a good character concept to go with it. (If anything, I think that the existing class restrictions in the RAW are too binding.) In a looser less-RP-oriented gaming group, even a reasonable concept of what the character's classes represent isn't super important. After all, there's a difference between the abilities that a character has and the character itself. So best to treat all the "core" classes as reasonable choices for any character at any time, and save the special restrictions for prestige classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The 'Cultural' Classes: Barbarian & Monk
Top