Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alpha_Nerd 01-18-07, 02:11 PM	I don't know about you guys, but it really irks me when I see build with stuff like Monk 2 into Barbarian 1 followed by fighter. You shouldn't plan your character around things like alignment shifts. If you want to do silly stuff like that go play a MMO. Sure, lots of the people on this board post super optimized characters, but many of them never get played, especially the really stupid ones. If this isn't frowned upon pretty soon we'll have mid-character planned atonements flying around and it will just make it harder on the writers and LG volunteer staff. :banghead: I beg of you, please stop. EDIT: There is a difference between Monk 2/Barb 1 and things like Bard 4/Paladin 2 where you plan on taking devoted performer at 6.
jstorrie 01-18-07, 02:40 PM	Why shouldn't we? Explain the problem to me. What exactly is wrong here?
bhale187 01-18-07, 02:46 PM	The game is meant to be fun, and everyone can enjoy it in their own way. Telling players to stop power-gaming is as unreasonable as a power-gamer telling someone to stop roleplaying.
LGMoses 01-18-07, 02:51 PM	don't monk/barbs lose their class abilities for changing alignments? Or maybe they just can't progress, I'll look it up later. As a judge I've realized that there will always be people around who play/understand/see dnd differently than me, and I will have to adjust my style to fit them. Dnd is open source so there is no right answer on how to play it. A change like that is either a sign of powergaming or an actual moral/ethical change to a character. Maybe a bit of both. Don't let it bother you. Everybody handles their character differently: some like to plan it out from lvl 1-20 down to the skill point and some will just see what happens. Their is no rite way. Don't look at peoples character sheets and you won't get ****** off. See how they act and what they do and thats all you need. Also, I find your edit hypocritical. You're pretty much the pot calling the kettle black IMO. I didn't notice your edit until I was almost done. Just try to let everyone enjoy the game whether they're there for the interactions or just to see the numbers go up.
kenobi65 01-18-07, 03:14 PM	don't monk/barbs lose their class abilities for changing alignments? Or maybe they just can't progress, I'll look it up later. Barbarians lose rage if they become lawful (and can't progress further as barbarians), but retain their other abilities. Monks simply can't progress further as monks if they become non-lawful. Which is why you'll see monks becoming barbarians, but rarely, if ever, the reverse. I agree that it's cheesy, and I wouldn't play that way, but it's not against the rules.
Alpha_Nerd 01-18-07, 03:40 PM	I don't see how you guys can defend this. Sure people here optimize characters, but they stick to the spirit of the rules. They take what they are given, and they make a character that will survive and will be fun to play. People that plan to switch alignments are taking a part of LG that is hard to regulate and exploiting it. It is very difficult for LG to make a rule for alignment shifts, so they just trust the player to do it correctly. Alignment shifts should occur when the character changes who he is, not when the very Lawful monk decides at third level to completely go against everything he's known and become a raging lunatic, which seems to be very popular now a days. About the hypocricy in my edit, I feel the Devoted/Ascetic feats are made incorrectly. They should be pre-emptive feats that you take before you multi-class, but for some reason the guys at Wizard didn't think it through. If I want to play a Lawful Good Bard/Paladin, which is something that becomes legit as soon as I take a feat they made speficially for that purpose, I should be able to without having to lose and regain my abilities. I should be able to go bard 3, pick up a feat that lets me keep my bardic abilities if I go Lawful Good, and after I have both classes I get a benefit.
trollbill 01-18-07, 03:42 PM	Why shouldn't we? Explain the problem to me. What exactly is wrong here? I think his complaint is that it doesn't make any sense from an RP perspective. Not many people in real life plan to change their morality as part of a career move. Which doesn't mean they don't change their morality. They just don't plan on it. So planning a build that requires a change of alignment makes no RP sense.
LGMoses 01-18-07, 04:02 PM	I think his complaint is that it doesn't make any sense from an RP perspective. Not many people in real life plan to change their morality as part of a career move. Which doesn't mean they don't change their morality. They just don't plan on it. So planning a build that requires a change of alignment makes no RP sense. Does "planning a build" make rp sense at all to begin with?
jstorrie 01-18-07, 04:05 PM	But the character isn't planning to change morality, the player is planning to have the character do so. There isn't necessarily a sudden snap when, say, the monk goes neutral to pick up barbarian levels. What if the player has been roleplaying that monk's fall from lawfulness over the past six mods? What if the monk has been gradually slipping further and further from his monastic principles, and the alignment change and barbarian level represent how the character has developed in a different direction? You may say, "oh, but people don't play that out. They just powergame." That's ridiculous. Have some respect for the rest of the RPGA! Assume good faith in your fellow players! It's an interesting concept that can provide a hell of a lot of great roleplaying as the monk struggles to reconcile his changing views, and planning ahead for that is absolutely no problem at all - because again, the character isn't planning to do it. The player is planning to roleplay his character in that direction. So I will counter your 'go play an MMO' with an 'if you have no faith in your fellow players, think everyone is out to powergame, and refuse to accept characters that aren't played the way you think they should be: stick to playing with your home group!'
Alpha_Nerd 01-18-07, 04:11 PM	Someone could RP that as they leave their monastery for the real world they slip from Law into neutrality or even chaos, but going straight from Monk to Barbarian instantly seems like you're trying to rationalize the powergaming through a highly unlikely story.
clik_ml 01-18-07, 04:13 PM	The premises of your affront don't really make sense to me. presumed premises being: 1) The alignment restrictions of barbarians and monks are worth respecting. 2) Alignment shifts are cheesy, and as such, to be avoided I'm offended that there are any stupid alignment restrictions on barbarians, bards, and monks to begin with. The classes are tools for making a character whose abilities can fit your ideas of what they can do. If one can't find a staple character similar to one of these classes who doesn't fit the alignment they're not looking hard enough. I can't see the salient difference between how a devoted performer (bard/paladin) is ok, but a monk/barbarian isn't. You've gotta do some explanation if you really want to have it both ways. [edit: okay, neither is fine by you I guess, at least there's some consistency] Moving on to premise 2... Alignment shifts aren't taboo in stories- they're pretty darned common in fact. Whether they are good stories isn't for anyone to judge but the person playing them. Or should we make empassioned pledges that people stop playing characters whose backstories or personas that we find dumb as well? That some genius decided to handcuff those classes with nonsensical alignment restrictions doesn't make me feel an iota of guilt or cheesiness if I am required to shift alignments in order to build the character that I want.
jstorrie 01-18-07, 04:18 PM	"Bob is a very lawful monk, until he actually gets out of his monastery and sees the real world. Suddenly things make less and less sense. His training and control is cracking. He wants to give in to the anger building inside him. Could his masters have been wrong all along?" Bob has become an interesting character already! Monk into barbarian is the perfect build to describe what's happening as his character develops. What's the problem here?
bhale187 01-18-07, 04:30 PM	I propose a new rule to add to the next LGCS..... You may only build your character and roleplay your character in a way that everyone else thinks is appropriate for your character. The Ayes have it Rule so adopted, carry on.
Alpha_Nerd 01-18-07, 04:31 PM	If you want to make up that story and make that character, that's fine, but if want me to honestly believe that someone came up with that character concept, then planned the character classes around the concept instead of wanting to powergame the first two levels of monk together with Barbarian rage and found out he could do so with a nice little un-regulated alignment shift because monks retain abilities but can't progress when they go chaotic, good luck. Clik, I think it's more for the first arguement. We're given rules, and using loopholes to exploit them undermines LG, and as far as the unfair alignment restrictions, I think that is why there are the feats in complete adventurer like devoted performer, they realized the strict alignment rules are inaffective and wanted to try and fix it.
Mommy was an Orc 01-18-07, 04:48 PM	If you want to make up that story and make that character, that's fine, but if want me to honestly believe that someone came up with that character concept, then planned the character classes around the concept instead of wanting to powergame the first two levels of monk together with Barbarian rage and found out he could do so with a nice little un-regulated alignment shift because monks retain abilities but can't progress when they go chaotic, good luck. So a Monk 1/Cleric X of Zuoken or Xan Yae is powergaming? It is perfectly in character for them to do it and the way LG and D&D works requires them to make the same little unregulated alignment shift.
Akhamshyy 01-18-07, 04:49 PM	Your opinion is I'm sure shared by others, but in the end it is just that. An opinion. Your own belief. Your fine to think that and it is odd to see purity so hard to retain for LG monks, what with modern examples of monastic groups falling from grace in the real world. Just remember there is no nazi system of forced role-play here. My idea of a fun PC may differ broadly from anyone else’s. That is a good thing and if people want to tweak here or there to enhance their own fun, good for them. You most certainly can play your style while they play theirs. There's nothing in the rules to keep us from shifting alignment short of draconic intervention, and I hope there never is.
trollbill 01-18-07, 04:54 PM	Does "planning a build" make rp sense at all to begin with? Why not? People plan their careers out don't they. Now in fact, few actually ever completely stick to the program, but I see that happen a lot with pre-planned builds as well. I propose a new rule to add to the next LGCS..... You may only build your character and roleplay your character in a way that everyone else thinks is appropriate for your character. The Ayes have it Rule so adopted, carry on. That rule has been around in D&D since day 1. "Bob is a very lawful monk, until he actually gets out of his monastery and sees the real world. Suddenly things make less and less sense. His training and control is cracking. He wants to give in to the anger building inside him. Could his masters have been wrong all along?" Okay, this is purely an intellectual arguement. I am not really disagreeing with you here. But the problem with this scenario is that it is fine from an RP stand-point when it happens, but not when it is planned to happen. It's also fine from a storytelling standpoint (which is really why I am not disagreeing with you). But from a pure RP standpoint, this happening as a planned event just doesn't make sense.
Munkwunk 01-18-07, 04:55 PM	Does "planning a build" make rp sense at all to begin with? Absolutely. How else do you plan on getting in to any of the bazillions of available prestige classes? If you don't plan for them, it is highly unlikely that you will ever get in to one. Are you proposing that, in the interest of "role playing", we eliminate prestige classes? (If yes, then please note that there are so many new worlds of role-playing opportunities for people who join certain prestige calsses!) I see nothing wrong with splashing a couple levels of monk before dipping in to barbarian. Sure, the alignment restrictions (which I agree are stupid) don't match up, but there's a reason monks don't lose their class abilities for becoming non-lawful (and I hoenstly don't see why a lawful barbarian loses his ability to get really ****** off). I don't think this is an exploitation of the rules so much as it is another fine example of what one can do with the freedoms granted to his character. There are several role-playing concepts which could be built around the idea of a monk straying from his lawful origins. Say Bob loses himself to debauchery after discovering that his masters were wrong all of these years. He drinks himself under the table and, after several months of being a raging alchoholic, is discovered by an organization of drunken masters. They wish to train him in the art of drunken boxing and offer him a world of knowledge that his monastic masters had sheltered him from all these years. Bob likes the idea, so he agrees to train under new masters and learn a new fighting style which can put his previous monk training as well as his new love for revelry and berzerker fury to good use. If I want to plan a drunken master build that involves some barbarian levels, what's so wrong with that? I've still built a character who has a strong back story that he can then choose to play out in-game if he so wishes. He's no different than a character in a novel, and those characters are often planned from the pre-writing phase. He has a personal story line which may not encompass his entire life history, but it focuses on current events in the character's life. The story may have been written to explain away the details of the player's accused "powergaming" habits, but where's the harm in that? He's still a well-developed (and potentially well-role-played) character.
catsclaw 01-18-07, 04:59 PM	If you want to make up that story and make that character, that's fine, but if want me to honestly believe that someone came up with that character concept, then planned the character classes around the concept instead of wanting to powergame the first two levels of monk together with Barbarian rage and found out he could do so with a nice little un-regulated alignment shift because monks retain abilities but can't progress when they go chaotic, good luck.Well, tough. I started playing around with the idea of a medieval monk (because I find the idea of the eastern monk in the generic D&D work kind of stupid) and ultimately came up with a build I think fits the character. Monk 2 -> Cleric 3 -> Bard 1 -> Divine Prankster Two levels of monk, before I get thrown out of the abbey for drinking. Convert to chaotic, and begin worshipping Olidammara. Fight with a quarterstaff, and take the quarterstaff fighting style to allow me to get extra AC by fighting defensively. There are better choices if I were doing it to powergame (like Sacred Fist, but then I couldn't fight with a quarterstaff. Or Rogue -> Monk -> Cleric, but it doesn't fit the character). But this is the character I want to play, it's far from overpowered, and if I have to write an alignment shift into his backstory to do it, I will. I'm guessing you don't have a problem with alignment shifts, you have a problem with either: 1) powergamers, or 2) planning your characters build ...which is a different issue, isn't it?
Mommy was an Orc 01-18-07, 05:03 PM	I think his complaint is that it doesn't make any sense from an RP perspective. Not many people in real life plan to change their morality as part of a career move. Which doesn't mean they don't change their morality. They just don't plan on it. So planning a build that requires a change of alignment makes no RP sense. Sure it can. In fact, Living Greyhawk actually has two deities who would seem to require it. Being a Monk X/Cleric Y of Xan Yae or Zuoken ought to make perfect role-playing sense. But by the rules, that means you have to start off LN(or LG) and change to Neutral. If you're a Monk who worships either of them, it makes sense that it might be true. That doesn't mean they change their morality either. Alignment is based on both actions and morality. Your actions can be one alignment, your morality another. When you're a practicing Monk, your actions are more tied to what is required of you, even if your morality says otherwise. A Police Officer may very well be lawful in actions, because he knows his job depends on it, even if his morality is neutral. A Monk who worships Joramy might very well lead naturally to levels in Barbarian. Or the Monk can start off unhappy with his path in life, finding the rules and regulations of his chosen profession an unnatural one, especially without the context of his monastery. He may wonder at how little the Monks prepared him(to the point of valuing Combat Reflexes, but no reach weapon to use it with) Or, in the same way 1st level characters may have somehow heard of prestige class X, such that they take a feat at 1st level to get into it(Skill Focus(Knowledge(Religion) on that Wizard anyone?), this particular 1st level character may have heard of going from Monk 2 to Barbarian as being a very effective 'career' move. So much so that you're willing to put up with the requirements of being a Monk to gain the benefits therein. You've never taken a job, knowing that you'll likely hate it, but realizing that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term pain. I worked at McDonald's as a teenager. Did that mean I'd have to work there the rest of my life? No. But it meant my resume out of college looked better than it did without it.
trollbill 01-18-07, 05:37 PM	You've never taken a job, knowing that you'll likely hate it, but realizing that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term pain. I worked at McDonald's as a teenager. Did that mean I'd have to work there the rest of my life? No. But it meant my resume out of college looked better than it did without it. Unless McDonalds forced you to change your personal sense of morality, and you knew it would before you took the job, I don't see the comparison here. This comparison is more like taking levels in a class you hate so that you can get a PrC you love. In that case, your eye is on the prize. Which makes sense. Morality changes may happen gradually, or they may happen as an epiphany, but I can't think of a real life instance where someone actually made a longterm plan for their life that included changing their POV. "Well, I'm going to law school. When I get out I plan on teaching law. Then after a few years I thought I'd become a Born Again Christian, try that for a while and then switch to Athiesm." :confused:
clannagh 01-18-07, 05:51 PM	in principle i agree with the OP .. some power builds should be more an intellectual exercise i would also state categorically that any experience player should be able to create numerous builds that break the LG mods by level 10 or so to the point that one character (maybe with buffs) can take on 75% of the encounters virtually solo, that is a no-brainer and for most of us not even remotely intersting. It's the sign of a "newb" to want t do that r think its impressive What IS actually challenging .. and fun .. is to create a weird or unusual build that in theory is suboptimal and squeeze every inch out of it. Or to radically rebuild a high level character becasue of unusual access or roleplay events and still make it work. Furthermore .. if you can make it look like it was meant to be that build all along even better. NOW .. as for the alignment shift issue. Should you really want to do it and need a good roleplay reason you would need to invoke some concept of the character being fated or having a kharmic destiny to follow that path. Right it on the play sheet. However if soemthing funky happens that makes yu want to change the build it would then be VERY dodgy for you to move from the original path.
Mommy was an Orc 01-18-07, 05:56 PM	Morality changes may happen gradually, or they may happen as an epiphany, but I can't think of a real life instance where someone actually made a longterm plan for their life that included changing their POV. How about a soldier who is using the army to get a college education. In order to be an effective soldier, they're going to have to accept the possibility of killing someone, even if that's not their POV or consider it moral(in fact, killing someone is almost certainly immoral by most religions)
_m_ 01-18-07, 07:26 PM	what if your character is just one of those really eccentric, kind of off centre people who just cant make up her mind, and wants to try everything? i have a fighter ranger monk barbarian, going wolflord and beastmaster (if i can find natural bond somewhere) imo, as long as you role play it out, there is no reason your character shouldnt change alignment.
bhale187 01-18-07, 07:45 PM	The way I see it the problems does not lie on the lap of the powergamer, but on the lap of WotC for failing to realize that being a monk should not require you to be lawful. In fact one of the major leading principles of the Shao Lin monks is the Middle Way or Middle Path--described as the practice of non-extremism; a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification. That sounds to me like a philosophical commitment to nuetral/neutral. As long as the monk alignment is 'broken' players will have to twist their character alignments to match their character.
jstorrie 01-18-07, 10:45 PM	I think a large number of people here are not seeing the character/player distinction. The character is no more planning to change alignment than he is planning to take Elusive Target. Those are out-of-character choices that the player makes to represent the character in rules terms. No PC is saying to himself, 'yes, I think I will become more chaotic in a couple of levels, here, so I can multiclass into barbarian,' because characters are characters, living in Greyhawk, who have no idea that they're being represented by numbers and class levels. A player, on the other hand, may decide that he wants his character - not just his character's class levels, but his character's personality and identity - to develop in a certain direction, and that's their choice to make. Nothing in the character's life restricts how the player chooses to direct it. In short, if seeing Monk2/Barb1 on a character sheet irks you you need to lighten up.
Lupo 01-19-07, 03:34 AM	I don't know about you guys, but it really irks me when I see build with stuff like Monk 2 into Barbarian 1 followed by fighter. You shouldn't plan your character around things like alignment shifts. If you want to do silly stuff like that go play a MMO. Sure, lots of the people on this board post super optimized characters, but many of them never get played, especially the really stupid ones. If this isn't frowned upon pretty soon we'll have mid-character planned atonements flying around and it will just make it harder on the writers and LG volunteer staff. :banghead: I beg of you, please stop. EDIT: There is a difference between Monk 2/Barb 1 and things like Bard 4/Paladin 2 where you plan on taking devoted performer at 6. it is a systematic in-built and obviously volitional effect of D&D 3.x that character development is partly about cherry-picking :D. especcially since not all character (base) classes are equal . . . ;). some are wantonly neglected in certain areas, some are handing out bargains at certain levels and stop to do so afterwards.:rolleyes: with most "strange" builds that irk, it is most often a player who is concentrating on roll-playing and can't come up with even the thinest slice of "background" or "development" story apart from: "if i want to have the rage ability in unarmed fight, it is most beneficial to switch from monk to barbarian after two levels . . . ":( and monk 2, barbarian 2, fighter 2 (or ranger 2) is a very solid build after all :P ciao martin m.
Gwumph 01-19-07, 03:44 AM	For me the Character concept is everything and how you have to twist the PC classes is not important. This isn't powergaming, it's making a charcter into the concept you envision. i.e. You want to make a character similiar to Danny the dog from the movie unleashed (Jet li) monk/barb is the perfect combo to make that character You want to make a Jackie chan style character, monk/swashbuckler is perfect combo for that character You want to make a Riddick style character then a rogue/barb/fighter would be the best combo You play your character to the ethics you envision, not the ethics the class dictates. Play the concept not the alignment is how I see it.
awroe 01-19-07, 04:37 AM	How does your character know what alignment you've written on their 'character sheet'? I find, with most of my characters, that until I've been playing them for a couple of mods I don't know what alignment they will turn out to be. I play with them a bit, see what their attitudes are, and choose based on that. If you are a good roleplayer you should certainly be able to play the alignment change when it happens - you have an entire levels worth of adventures to do it in. There are many people in the world who do jobs that do not agree with their internal moral compass, either because they feel there is a benefit in the end, because they have nothing else to do, or perhaps they haven't found the courage to leave yet. What about a child who was brought up in the monastery, started his training with them, and then rebelled against all the strictures they placed on him. Given a lot of human characters are teenaged, this sounds quite a reasonable plan. Or do you feel that authors should never plan what characters in their books should do in advance either? AW
awroe 01-19-07, 04:58 AM	Why should the character not plan an alignment change? You loose nothing when you stop being a monk due to alignment. One valid interpretation (that fits with the all levels in one block) is that the monks will only train you in their techniques if you make a vow to obey their rules while it is happening. When you break that, they stop teaching you. First two levels lasts about 7 adventures = 14TUs = approximately 3 months. So why should a generally neutral *character* not decide that they'll go and be trained by the monks for a few months to improve their unarmed style, obeying the rules while they are at it, but returning to their true nature afterwards? AW.
gomeztoo 01-19-07, 05:04 AM	Sure it can. In fact, Living Greyhawk actually has two deities who would seem to require it. Being a Monk X/Cleric Y of Xan Yae or Zuoken ought to make perfect role-playing sense. Afaik you can be a LN cleric of a N deity. So you can be a monk/cleric of Zuoken/Xan Yae without changing alignment.
Mommy was an Orc 01-19-07, 07:55 AM	Afaik you can be a LN cleric of a N deity. So you can be a monk/cleric of Zuoken/Xan Yae without changing alignment. Hmm. True. Need more sleep. However... It is perfectly logical that such a character is planning or will change to Neutral alignment.
gomeztoo 01-19-07, 08:06 AM	Sure. I don't care how people make their PC as long as they don't dictate how I should make mine. But the example didn't work. Monk/Barbarian doesn't strike as a common concept (tranquility/unimpeded rage), but it is seen relatively often. For me it is not so much a bad idea as a rather overused one. "The monk that rebels against the strict code" that way becomes a boring power build rather than an intersting concept. But so is the powerattacking dumb-as-mud-no-cha-to-speakof barbarian half-orc, the tripping fighter, the bard/marshall, etc. I try to make PCs that are a bit different, and even they fall into such categories (the diplo-bard and the canned dwarf).
paigeoliver 01-19-07, 08:53 AM	I have never seen a Bard-Barbarian. When the party needs more than just moral support. I have never seen a Sorceror-Marshal. Evenly split this would make a great support character. I have never seen a dual wand wielding druid, although I did work up a build for one, it annoyed me that I couldn't do it at a low level without dipping into a character class that has NOTHING to do with the build (have to take Skill Focus diplomacy at 1st level then stick in a marshall level later otherwise you are waiting until 9th level).
Mommy was an Orc 01-19-07, 09:21 AM	I have never seen a Bard-Barbarian. When the party needs more than just moral support. I have never seen a Sorceror-Marshal. Evenly split this would make a great support character. I have never seen a dual wand wielding druid, although I did work up a build for one, it annoyed me that I couldn't do it at a low level without dipping into a character class that has NOTHING to do with the build (have to take Skill Focus diplomacy at 1st level then stick in a marshall level later otherwise you are waiting until 9th level). Bard-Barbarians are actually pretty common, they just don't stay in those two classes. Dragon Disciple or Warchanter - while there's only 7 Warchanters on the Nyrond list, 4 of them have both Barbarian and Bard levels. Marshal is an interesting way of getting heavy armor/all martial weapons/all knowledge skills for a Sorcerer. Spellsword and Divine Oracle open up that way.
pedr 01-19-07, 09:45 AM	We've got a barbarian locally with one level of bard. Though he took the level just to get the knowledge (arcana) and spellcraft ranks for Occult Slayer, I believe, so I guess there is some risk of this being considered slightly excessive powergaming! It makes sense in character, though, as his in-character girlfriend is a bard so stands to reason he'd have picked up a few things!
gomeztoo 01-19-07, 10:07 AM	Bard-Barbarians are actually pretty common. My main was a bard/barbarian before she converted to sorcerer (for the draconic feats). I know someone regional is plannign one. Btw we refer to a bard/barbarian as a 'skald'.
dark_poet 01-19-07, 11:40 AM	If this isn't frowned upon pretty soon we'll have mid-character planned atonements flying around and it will just make it harder on the writers and LG volunteer staff. :banghead: Can I just clarify regarding who you speak for when you express such opinions? Because I remember quite clearly RPGA/WotC staff accepting character optimization as part of D&D/LG. In fact, especially in LG which is very combat oriented. Personally I have no interest in alignment shifts, but hey if it isn't against the rules I think its generally in the spirit of the rules. Especially considering such build ideas have been around for some time and the RPGA/WotC have not done anything to clamp down on it.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-19-07, 11:48 AM	I guess the OP would just hate one of my PC's....because the alignment switch didn't occur until later in the build: Race:Dwarf Alignment: STR-16 (10) DEX-15 (8) (+1 from shedding scales) CON-14 (6) +2 INT-8 (0) WIS-12 (4) CHA-8 (0) -2 Lv1(Fighter)Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Warhammmer) Lv2(Fighter)Weapon Focus (Handaxe) Lv3(Fighter)Power Attack Lv4(Fighter)Improved Sunder, +1 Dex Lv5(Fighter) Lv6(Fighter)Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Anvil of Thunder Lv7(Monk)Improved Grapple, Flurry of Blows, Unarmed Strike Lv8(Monk)Combat Reflexes, evasion, +1 Dex Lv9(Barbarian)Dual Strike, Fast Movement, Rage Lv10(Rogue)Sneak Attack, Trap Finding Lv11(Fighter) Lv12(Fighter)+1 Dex, Cleave, Close Quarters Fighting/Staggering Strike/Extra Rage. Lv13(Tactical Soldier) Lv14(Tactical Soldier) Lv15(Barbarian)Feat Currently he's a level 9, so he just finished with his monkey business. My RP justification for this is that early on he realized that he'd never be as powerful a mages can be, so he became determined to at least make himself useful in as many combat situations as possible. After the 6th level of fighter, the best way to do this was with monk training. The switch from fighter to monk isn't too out there. And personally, I have envisioned almost the exact MOMENT he got thrown out of the monastary. He was doing some routine training, trying to get a head start on learning Ki Strike (Magic), by trying to break a series of special training boards that instead of hardness had DR/Magic...well, after numerous failed attempts, and at this point fairly sore hands, he became very frustrated, and VERY angry, wailing on the boards without care, and he finally broke them...followed by a few other objects within arms reach...So, after being thrown out, he decided to change his training style to incorporate his rage, thus aquiring the rest of the 1st level barbarian abilities. Now, on a slight tangent, if you think about it, it does make sense for there to be many times more failed monks of any given level then there are devoted monks capable of following their training to the end. Also, if you are saying to stop planning around allignment shifts, then you are saying you are against alignment shifts altogether, because, except for a very few circumstances, a character's aligment CAN'T change unless the player plans for it to some degree...And also, I'd just like to say the character wasn't ORIGINALLY planned to do the switch, originally he was going to be straight fighter, but after a few levels, both myself as the player, and in character, realized I needed to diversify. And while I don't think anyone would call this build a power build in any fashion, I think many can agree that when it comes to combat, he's a swiss army knife.
cycloptic_squirrel 01-20-07, 02:59 AM	If I were the head of a monastery, I wouldn't let anyone go out unsupervised for more than a few weeks. After about 7-10 TUs... I mean weeks... new monks seem to be very prone to degenerate into violent hippies. That and I would never teach anyone the secret of evasion. There's something about learning evasion that seems to make people become very angry and they snap shortly after learning it. "I spent two months learning this stupid ability and it doesn't even work all the time?!? Stupid worthless monastery! Grrr!!! Smash!!!!" I try not to prejudge, but if you have two levels of monk followed by a level in barbarian, you have to be one heck of a roleplayer to convince me you're not just a power-gaming cheezehead. (No serious offense meant, I think I might fall under this endearing term.) If you pull a stunt like this pre-built alignment shift, you are executing cheezeball tactics, and you are deluding only yourself to claim otherwise. To me, it'd be much more convincing if you had a level or two of something else in between. I don't have a problem with monks falling from grace so much as the fact that when it happens it seems to happen almost universally both very abruptly and to the class that most epitomizes chaos. I have nothing against this play style and I definitely don't think we should try and craft rules prohibiting it. The best of this group tend to allow their build to guide their roleplaying, which is in sharp contrast to those whose builds follow their roleplaying. The type of player I most enjoy encountering blur this line enough that I can't tell which camp they're in. Having a monk-barbarian switch leaves little doubt in my mind. So it irks me a little, but if you're fun to play with, it'll be quickly forgotten.
Simpi 01-20-07, 03:14 AM	And of course, very few people see any problem with players doing it. Should I as author write NPC opponents who combine monk & barbarian levels, people would demand for my blood for being a cheese-weaseling-b.....d-who-is-out-to-get-the-players. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Japangirl 01-20-07, 03:27 PM	And of course, very few people see any problem with players doing it. Should I as author write NPC opponents who combine monk & barbarian levels, people would demand for my blood for being a cheese-weaseling-b.....d-who-is-out-to-get-the-players. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad Honestly, I'd prefer that to non-associated class levels on monsters. PC cheese has very little on what an author *can* do to monsters if s/he so chooses. So yeah, a monk/barbarian/fighter NPC would be a relatively unpleasant fight. It's still better than, say, a grell with full wizard casting levels that is below the CR of a human caster of the same level. The power creep in the newer monster manuals (III and IV especially) has made it very easy for cheese-monkey authors to horribly under CR encounters, if they want to. In comparison to that, a monk/barbarian is a cakewalk and I wouldn't mind seeing it at all.
Cardinal Teplin 01-21-07, 06:00 PM	I don't see the problem. Take my wizard, a wizard/alienist. Sooner or later he'll get worried about where his career is going and what all these tentacles will get him, get religion, and change to a suitable 'religious wizard' prestige class - probably divine oracle or similar. I was planning to accompany this by an alignment change, from chaotic to something a little more disciplined - probably to neutral. Just the natural progression of the character, essentially coming to his sense about what he's doing, and trying to get out while he still can. I suppose some people could see this as terrible roleplaying, although I'm not sure why. Most of the people I've met who object to what people do with their characters seem to object not to whatever it is they claim to object to, but rather to when it is done when powergaming is the only reason behind it. In other words, to the corruption of the character concept for the sake of stats. The problem with this noble sounding ambition is that even the cheesiest powergamer isn't someone who has no regard at all for personality. Rather there are plenty of people for whom their character's stats are almost or entirely irrelevent to their character's personality. The phrase I hear a lot is 'I play a character, not a set of stats.' These are the people who come up with a personality first and foremost, and then build stats around that character that roughly fit. And they will powergame that build, because they have no particular reason not to. Whether they take a level of fighter or a level of barbarian has no particular impact for them, as they intend to play their character the same way regardless. They already have a concept, and unless a character class, feat or ability violates that concept they don't give a monkey's. For example, one rather fine roleplayer of my acquaintance had an excellent idea for a wood elf character, a rather vengeful follower of Joramy, with a vile temper and few manners. Following the idea he had, he could have run it as a fighter, a barbarian, a cleric, a hospitaller, a martial, a bard or even some kind of warrior rogue. The character is a wonderful character to play with, and he's very effective in combat because most of the class and abilities have been designed with powergaming in mind - because they have no other impact on the personality. There are lots of way of getting a personality. You can start with some abilities, and extrapolate a personality from them (if I were a great and mighty wizard, what would I be like). You can start with a personality, and extropolate character training chocies from there. (A is a bit of a scardy cat, so learned to hide a lot and be sneaky. B is a bit of a scardy cat, and so learned to wear heavy armour and scream at people. C is a bit ofa scardy cat, and so stayed in the arcane library with books because it seemed like the safest idea t the time... etc. ) But there is no direct link between a set of character stats and a personality. No way of playing fighters that is 'wrong'. No combination of factors that 'isn't roleplaying'. Of course you may feel that some people don't give much thought to their characters and play them as a set of stats. And no matter how good a roleplayer you are, I can guarentee that someone else will think the same of you, if they havn't already. Rather than get into a endless of cycle of recrimination whereby some build choices are roleplaying and others are somehow not, why not let people play their own characters how they see fit, and stop trying to claim someone is just playing a set of stats rather than a personality... based on their stats.
LGMoses 01-22-07, 03:40 AM	at first the I thought the monk/barb thing mite bother me. Then I thought about how long it takes to get to lvl 1, lvl 2, lvl 3. lvl 2 to 3 is not instant. There is a lot of time for that monk to change his philosophies and go to CG. Its a stretch but possible. So monk 2/barb 1 isn't that bad a thing as far as "rp" is concerned. It was probably planned but so what. I personally don't like to plan more than 2 maybe 3 levels ahead so its fine. Everyone gets their own enjoyment out of Dnd so its no good to get upset over someone not playing the game right. The main tip I can give to other people to enjoy the game is never look at anyone elses character sheet. Never ever look. Judge by how they act in game, by what they do in/out of combat. Enjoy the game and remember that other people's characters are their characters and your character is your character.
kenobi65 01-22-07, 01:36 PM	There is a lot of time for that monk to change his philosophies and go to CG. Note that he wouldn't need to become Chaotic Good, just Neutral Good. Barbarians only have to be "non-lawful".
gomeztoo 01-22-07, 01:55 PM	I thought about planning this carreer, not OOC, but IC. What if there is a monk's path, the "Path of the Bear", where you changing alignment (from, say, LN to N) is part of the progress? The path ofg teh bear teaches you to channel your passions, your emotions, into force. A very monkish thing, if you think of it. A sort of 'dark jedi' trick. You can't start doing this isnatntly though. That's noit how the 'path' works. First, you need to train your body and learn strict, unyielding discipline. Only when you have mastered discipline, can you progress truthfully to the path of the Bear. Once you have reached a certain mastery of discipline (after a few levels of monk), you can then give in to your passions, and learn to channel your emotions into force (i.e. rage). In a way you 'unlearn' the rigorous discipline that you have now mastered (it's very monkish to 'unlearn' wat you just learned). You are still a 'monk', in a way, following an enlightened path, but you can now let go of the disicipline a bit (though not entirely ofcourse: you still need to keep a certain discipline in your training or you will fail to achieve enlightenment). You need be aware that following the path of the bear does mean that you give up amstering other techniques: the path of the bear is demanding, and once you follow it's oath it cannot easily be deviated from... What do you think? It almost makes me want to make a Path of the Bear PC...
jstorrie 01-22-07, 04:23 PM	I think that's perfectly okay, and honestly very neat.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-22-07, 05:03 PM	About the hypocricy in my edit, I feel the Devoted/Ascetic feats are made incorrectly. They should be pre-emptive feats that you take before you multi-class, but for some reason the guys at Wizard didn't think it through. If I want to play a Lawful Good Bard/Paladin, which is something that becomes legit as soon as I take a feat they made speficially for that purpose, I should be able to without having to lose and regain my abilities. I should be able to go bard 3, pick up a feat that lets me keep my bardic abilities if I go Lawful Good, and after I have both classes I get a benefit. Except that you rarely have feat slots align appropriately to do that, since you only get one every 3rd level. I prefer them as-is; if you want to be a Monk3/Ftr4 and then go back, you should be able to buy that feat at 6.
LGMoses 01-22-07, 11:49 PM	Note that he wouldn't need to become Chaotic Good, just Neutral Good. Barbarians only have to be "non-lawful". correct again Kenobi.
ShinAkuma2 01-23-07, 12:03 AM	I should be able to go bard 3, pick up a feat that lets me keep my bardic abilities if I go Lawful Good, and after I have both classes I get a benefit. I'm sorry if I'm just missing it, but where does it say that a Lawful Bard loses his abilities? If you're doing Bard4/Paladin2 to get Devoted Performer as your 6th level feat, you should have no loss of abilities, and you'll be able to take more Bard after getting the feat.