Dual-Classing for Monk, or other class
Akerhon
Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 614
Will be possible to have a "Dual-Class Monk"?
2
Comments
personally i would prefer to see some sensible kits for monks first, and ability to dual class later. (maybe kits could include option to dual class. monk class is a bit tricky, being demanding to develop fully and all...)
Monk class is a full commitment, you have your powers due to a constant concentration state and force of will. So to dual class from a monk is to leave your old beliefs, the very essence of the class skills, there would be nothing left to recover when your new class overcome the monk class, except for some thaco bonus or attacks per round.
From a technical perspective, a monk is a snowball of power, the more levels you have with them, the better. To dual him after some point is the same that trow on the garbage all the effort made to archieve the current level (we're speaking of BG start here at level 1 i believe what just enhance this point of view). And to become a monk latter would be not very wise.
What is needed to monks is to move them away from a warrior kit view, cos that's what they are at the moment, and make them a class specific character (more attack all abilities and less killing machine maybe, just an option here).
Edit: Just forget, an update on the find traps of the monks shoud be cool too, the find trap description include disarm them, what is not possible on the game (anyway, disarm or force a trigger from a distance, something shoud be done about it).
Order of the Sun Soul;
Order of the Dark Moon;
Broken Ones;
Shining Hand;
Weeping Friars;
Long Death;
from: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Monastic_orders
I'm sure that whatever reason presented can always be argued against.
But I agree with Anton as well, in that at the moment, monks need to be fixed more than expanded.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mages get knowledge and pratice of bending and manipulating the arcane forces. therefore its nonsense equate them to a monk.
Druids have affinity with nature, their power come not of their commitment by nature but by being in harmony with nature.
Clerics (a more hard matter), have their powers by being devote to a god, while they're learning the 2° class they can't use cleric powers, cos they're distant from their god, but i don't see a problem if i roleplay someone with a faith crisis, that later get back his confidence in his god.
Monks develop themself to Their gods, every form of their power is an expression of their beliefs. Much like a Gith they shape their power from will itself. If you stop of believe yourself you change, it's not a deity that can simply accept your back, it's yourself that don't belief in the very source of your power.
Its my opinion, and not a registered fact.
"Mages are mages and therefore can't be compared to monks."
"Druids are in harmony with nature as opposed to being committed to nature so it's okay to dual-class."
"When clerics dual-class they have a faith crisis, which they can snap out of."
"Monks are too super cool to dual-class."
except for the first paragraph of my frist post here, that i believe to be a base of the AD&D dual class, all the others are my point of view and i let that clear.
@Tanthalas as i said i used the AD&D rule set to make this view.
Wanna try this overpowered combo that makes no roleplaying sense what-so-ever? Sure, why not? You're in control, suit yourself.
Again, if there are no limits to what you can do, everything everyone does becomes ordinary and therefore uninteresting. For things to be special there have to be rules governing them, and limits need be set as to what PCs can do. I'm all against Monks, Paladins and Kensais being able to dual-class. I'm not going to argue against existing dual-classing combinations for the sole reason that they already exist.
Seriously people - and I know this is going to get me a whole lot of disagrees but I don't care - stop asking for powerful / overpowered things by masking them as flexibility / more options to the player just because you want the power. Either admit that you're doing this for the cheese, or drop it. The game is already easy enough to beat as it is (and AD&D rules exist for a reason, which is not to be bent: with no rules, there is no game).
I did "Disagree" you, but its not because of the "overpowered" things (though I will talk about that too), its actually because of this: I have never played a PnP game and my only experience of AD&D and 3E is from BG/IWD and stuff that I have read online, so my knowledge is limited, but considering these games, I'd say that 3E brought a lot more freedom to role-playing.
My character grew up in a monastery and from a young age was trained in the ways of the Monk. After a few years he left the monastery and through his experiences he:
a) found out he had a gift for magic and learned arcane arts.
b) joined a Thieve's guild and embarked in a life of larceny.
c) found out about his talent for song and performing and opened a show on Broadway.
3E's leveling system also fixed a very big problem with weapon proficiencies. It simply made no sense that Paladins could never achieve Grand Mastery in a weapon. Likewise for all the other classes, it also made no sense that they either dual-classed out or into the Fighter class to get Grand Mastery (if you're human), or had to multi-class Fighter-Something. To me, 3E fixed this issue by allowing any class (well, in IWD2 there were restrictions for Paladins and Monks and I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true in PnP 3E) to get a few Fighter levels at the cost of delaying your growth in your preferred class:
My Mage is awesome with his quarterstaff, but my magic isn't as developed due to how I focused so much on my melee skills.
However I just wanted to know if there would be this possibility xD i never played a Monk in BG ...
And in a somewhat related note, I read this from the forgotten realms wiki the other day.
"The first novel in the The Elminster series, "Making of a Mage" recounts the character's origin story, which explains why he has levels in so many different character classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard)."
And this is talking about one of the most well-known wizards in the realms.
"Of course some limits have to be present..."
Of course in this topic you have a disagree about the monk, now in topic:
As the old games is the AD&D rules with small adds from further editions, that's what gonna rule the BG:EE, no? So the rules have to respect the AD&D settings even if the additional content come from ulterior editions, like the monk and the sorcerer.
In 3° edition (i'm a little ignorant about the specifications of the 3° edition, just know them by neverwinter nights playtrough) there's no stop on the evolution of the frist class when you upgrade a new one, so the system there is quite different than AD&D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons
If i'm not wrong (and i may be, it's a risk guess here) a monk lvl 10 there can go to lvl 11 or use the level up to make a level 1 wizard class, however the xp used to make that wizard lvl 1 is the same needed to make the same character a monk lvl 11 also, there's no bound anymore of the character to the class on 3° edition.
Mix implements is already messy, but can be done and baldur's gate is the life proof of it. However to mix rules, is to mess the game itself (and our heads along). There's no sense in defend a idea cos 3° edition rule that situation in a way. Or we use the AD&D rules to respect the original content, or we jump to the actual 4°edition or even the 5° edition that had his launch already announced if comes before the launch of BG:EE.
I agree that mixing rules would be messy. By looking at IWD2, Monks seem to follow the same philosophy of Paladins, so it makes sense not to allow them to dual-class in BGEE.
My post was more to discuss about that part that I quoted from AndreaColombo about the 3E rules not making role-playing sense.
Also, in 2E, you CAN dual class a paladin into any other class. I know I've done it in Goldbox games.
I've even done Paladin/Ranger, not the most recommended due to stat and THAC0 overlap and a lack of spells, but still!
A monk needs to get to a high level to receive all his innate benefits, which is why you'd want to become a mage with great further buffable resistances.
What point would a fighter/Monk be? The benefits of being a fighter are lost on the monk. The reverse would be even more baffling.
All in all, the question isn't 'Why can't I?' It's more "What's the gameplay value to it?"
I know for a fact in 3E that robes prevent Wis AC.
Simple overpower dual combo:
Barbarian/druid: +2 bonus to move speed, immunity to backstab and rage. That's with no penality cos all the barbarian penality the monk already has.
Extreme Dual combo:
lvl 12 druid/Monk. (just 300.000 xp to reach lvl 12 druid and already has 2 6° circle spells).
This is a monster combination, cos the doom lvl 1 spell would help quivering palms and the stun palm too, lvl 2 bark skin would give bonus to armor class as the monk don't use armor (and would add with monks natural bonus AC), dispel magic and miscast magic to destroy mages, lvl 5 iron skin...and lvl 6 harm with the monk bonus to unarmed attacks... serious we don't need another kensai/mage.
See the above and tell if is fair or balanced.
There other dual combos too, but those 2 just come to my mind now.