PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Barbarians, Ex-Monks, Ex-Paladins



prufock
2010-05-12, 10:31 AM
In cases where a character loses class abilities or the option to take more levels in a class due to an alignment change (see Barbarian, Monk), is this restriction waived if the alignment changes back. I'm thinking, specifically, of a Barbarian/Monk build, starting as Barbarian. To gain levels in Monk, you need to be lawful, for which you lose rage and the option to take more levels in Barbarian.

I would like to think yes, but the Paladin entry specifically states that an atonement spell negates this restriction; the Barbarian entry does not.

I'm looking for an official answer (RAW, FAQ, or otherwise).

I know that Monk has the extra restriction of not allowing you to gain more levels in Monk just for multi-classing. This won't be an issue.

sofawall
2010-05-12, 02:10 PM
A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian.


A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. If you start as a Barbarian, then take Monk, you lose Rage and the ability to take Barbarian levels. Nothing gives those abilities back, so you never get them back.

Also, side note, it would be better to start as a Monk, as you keep all Monk features when you turn non-lawful.

Eldariel
2010-05-12, 02:28 PM
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. If you start as a Barbarian, then take Monk, you lose Rage and the ability to take Barbarian levels. Nothing gives those abilities back, so you never get them back.

Also, side note, it would be better to start as a Monk, as you keep all Monk features when you turn non-lawful.

Which is just as well since Monk is really only good for two levels so once you've taken those, you wouldn't go back even if you could... Great game design there! The game forces you to optimize.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-12, 02:30 PM
Or take Chaos Monk from the Dragon Magazine.

Pretty-much the same as regular Monk, just have to be Chaotic and get 1d4-1 attacks on a Flurry (which increases at higher levels). :smallbiggrin:

Telonius
2010-05-12, 02:33 PM
Which is just as well since Monk is really only good for two levels so once you've taken those, you wouldn't go back even if you could... Great game design there! The game forces you to optimize.

Also allows the possibility of a "class change" scene. "You mean I can't ... but that's ... I just spent my whole life in a monastery studying for years and I still can't disarm this dolt with a pointy stick ... so ... very ... angry! ARRRRGH RAGE SMASH!"

Yora
2010-05-12, 02:43 PM
RAW is unclear, but I don't see any reason a barbarian shouldn't regain his Rage ability when he becomes non-lawful again.

Cogidubnus
2010-05-12, 02:49 PM
Or F and K's Tomes Monk. No alignment restrictions and it's actually USEFUL. Needs DM approval though.

sofawall
2010-05-12, 03:13 PM
RAW is unclear, but I don't see any reason a barbarian shouldn't regain his Rage ability when he becomes non-lawful again.

Regardless of personal feelings, RAW is pretty darn clear.

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 03:22 PM
Regardless of personal feelings, RAW is pretty darn clear.

It's not, actually; you two are applying different approaches to the same issue.

You are saying that once he becomes Lawful, that's it - no advancement, no going back.

He is saying that as long as the Barbarian is Lawful he cannot advance, but if he ceases to be Lawful once more then he can.

"becomes lawful" can be interpreted to support either approach: a one-time event, or a state of being.

sofawall
2010-05-12, 03:36 PM
Well, if you look at the Paladin's wording, it has a clause about getting your abilities back. Barbarian has none. Therefore, it stands to reason Barbarian has no way to get abilities back.

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 03:39 PM
Well, if you look at the Paladin's wording, it has a clause about getting your abilities back. Barbarian has none. Therefore, it stands to reason Barbarian has no way to get abilities back.

That wording is specific to the atonement spell, which paladins need because their abilities are divinely granted. a Monk and Barbarian, however, develop their skills internally.

The cleric has the same clause, for the same reason.

gallagher
2010-05-12, 03:50 PM
Or F and K's Tomes Monk. No alignment restrictions and it's actually USEFUL. Needs DM approval though.
link? i would like to look through this one, and google didnt find it for me :(

Escheton
2010-05-12, 04:14 PM
That is because barb needs an entire alignment shift while paladins have to already atone for doing 1 thing wrong once. It comes up more and alignmentshifts arent that common in regular play.

Mongoose87
2010-05-12, 04:43 PM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.

Amphetryon
2010-05-12, 05:02 PM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.
Singh Rager ftw.

herrhauptmann
2010-05-13, 12:16 AM
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.
The paladin can multiclass out of paladin, but except for specific cases(healer, knight, few others), can't continue to take levels in paladin later. So your paladin, while still Lawful good, can take levels in monk. But he can't go back and take more paladin levels later. Though he can still use paladin abilities so long as he's lawful good.
Atonement has nothing to do with this part.


Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
A monk can multiclass into paladin if he meets the alignment restrictions. But can't go back and take more levels in monk later.

There's nothing which says a barbarian can't multiclass out, then take more levels later.

It seems like, if the paladin or monk changes alignment away from Lawful (good), and changes back, all without leveling up once, he should be able to continue taking levels in monk or paladin. But if he levels while not meeting the alignment restrictions, he MUST multiclass, which prevents any further leveling in monk or paladin.
I think, if a paladin is on his atonement quest, and he levels in the middle, a reasonable DM should allow him to continue taking paladin levels (he needs to atone, so for now, they're dead levels). If on the atonement quest and he multiclasses, yes he'll get back his paladin powers when he finishes, but he can't continue to take paladin levels. Because he's now multiclassed.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-13, 12:26 AM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.

There's bit of a difference between mere anger and the psychotic beserker fury of the Barbarian. One is a gale, the other is a hurricane, lashing out almost as a force of nature, without discipline, without remorse.

herrhauptmann
2010-05-13, 12:33 AM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.

Think of the worst temper tantrum you've ever seen some little brat throw in the supermarket or a restaurant.
Now, imagine that same temper tantrum, but with a full grown man, who's armed with a deadly weapon. And he's trying to kill you.

But not only does he want to kill you, he wants to tear off your arm, beat you with the stump. Then rip off your head and do unmentionable (in the forums) things down the hole in your neck.
Lawful guys can get angry, it'd be bad roleplaying if they never did. But lawful guys can't act like that and still be lawful.

Mastikator
2010-05-13, 12:38 AM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.

Inhibition.
Just like non-lawful can't be as disciplined as needed to take levels in monk.

Asbestos
2010-05-13, 12:41 AM
Then what, are bards just too flighty to be lawful?

herrhauptmann
2010-05-13, 12:44 AM
Then what, are bards just too flighty to be lawful?

Pretty much. (don't bother debating the role which bards played in historical societies)

prufock
2010-05-14, 07:59 AM
Thanks to everyone who responded. I think the general consensus is that the barbarian loses his ability to rage permanently if he becomes lawful, unless it's through magical means (which can be revoked by atonement). The Atonement spell actually specifically lists paladins and clerics/druids as regaining abilities, but no mention of barbarian or monks.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-14, 08:12 AM
I think the general consensus is that the barbarian loses his ability to rage permanently if he becomes lawful

I'd contest that.

Optimystik
2010-05-14, 08:38 AM
I'd contest that.

As would I - therefore, no consensus.

Jayabalard
2010-05-14, 10:04 AM
I don't get why lawful people can't get angry.getting angry != rage.

Iceforge
2010-05-14, 10:26 AM
I would say that by RAW a Barbarian could regain Rage and take more levels as a Barbarian, if he becomes non-lawful again.

Keywords are in the wording difference between Paladin and Barbarian


A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian

Now, there is the first special restriction on Paladins which requires them to remain lawful good, not commit evil acts and such, for which atonement is required before further advancement is possible


She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations

And the other about multiclassing, which seems more related to the barbarian issue:


A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level[...]

Emphasis added on the important word, which is not present in the EX-barbarian entry in RAW.

As the Barbarian entry does not include never, like the other entry, I would say it is safe to say that by RAW, you can once again take levels and use rage once you become non-lawful again

Androgeus
2010-05-14, 10:48 AM
Think of the worst temper tantrum you've ever seen some little brat throw in the supermarket or a restaurant.
Now, imagine that same temper tantrum, but with a full grown man, who's armed with a deadly weapon. And he's trying to kill you.

But not only does he want to kill you, he wants to tear off your arm, beat you with the stump. Then rip off your head and do unmentionable (in the forums) things down the hole in your neck.
Lawful guys can get angry, it'd be bad roleplaying if they never did. But lawful guys can't act like that and still be lawful.

If that is just rage, do I want to know what frenzy does?

herrhauptmann
2010-05-14, 09:19 PM
If that is just rage, do I want to know what frenzy does?
No, not in the least. :smalleek:


Thanks to everyone who responded. I think the general consensus is that the barbarian loses his ability to rage permanently if he becomes lawful, unless it's through magical means (which can be revoked by atonement). The Atonement spell actually specifically lists paladins and clerics/druids as regaining abilities, but no mention of barbarian or monks.

I think it's more "He loses the ability to rage WHILE lawful." Your phrasing means it is irrevocable (to me at least).
Weird, never noticed that atonement could technically work to help out a barb who was dumb enough to wear a helm of opposite alignment. Thought their only hope was a spell of Remove curse, or break enchantment. Or... just good roleplaying to restore their alignment via DM fiat.

prufock
2010-05-15, 04:22 PM
I'd contest that.

As would I - therefore, no consensus.

That's not what consensus means. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus)


As the Barbarian entry does not include never, like the other entry, I would say it is safe to say that by RAW, you can once again take levels and use rage once you become non-lawful again

I really wish this were the case, but unfortunately the language doesn't agree. "A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian."
Thog changes from chaotic to lawful - Thog becomes lawful. Thog "loses the ability to rage and can not gain more levels as a barbarian." There isn't any contingency for the reverse, even under the Atonement spell.


I think it's more "He loses the ability to rage WHILE lawful."

This might be the intent, but it isn't really backed up by the language. I wish it were, frankly. I don't see any reason a barbarian who returns to non-lawful couldn't rage again, in a thematic context.

Anyway, maybe my DM will decide it's stupid and just allow rage to kick back in if you become non-lawful again.

Icewraith
2010-05-15, 11:19 PM
Thog changes back to chaotic from lawful.

Thog now fulfills all the prerequisites for raging (nonlafwul alignment) and taking barbarian levels (nonlawful alignment).

The real trick is justifying the change in character via RP. If I were the DM I'd be saying "This had better be good, otherwise it won't work."

Atonement doesn't apply because Atonement is basically you saying "sorry" to your deity and paying an in-game penalty for your deviation.

Thog changing alignments is him working out whatever's going on in his head.

Coidzor
2010-05-16, 01:24 AM
I think it's more "He loses the ability to rage WHILE lawful." Your phrasing means it is irrevocable (to me at least).
Weird, never noticed that atonement could technically work to help out a barb who was dumb enough to wear a helm of opposite alignment. Thought their only hope was a spell of Remove curse, or break enchantment. Or... just good roleplaying to restore their alignment via DM fiat.

There's no helping any character who's anywhere near the helms of opposite alignment being thrown around by the DM.

Considering that they're mostly a way for the DM to take one's character away without even killing it.

Escheton
2010-05-16, 01:28 AM
raw animalistic rage doesnt mix well with being civilised.
And even after returning to a more chaotic nature, thog is no longer jungleboy. And thus can't access his inner fury any more.

Superglucose
2010-05-16, 01:54 AM
Sofawall is Correct :ninja:

Also I'd like to add to all the people "justifying" the alignment restriction on barbarians: ... what? Only the alignment restrictions based on the gods make any sense (it makes sense that Heironeous wouldn't want any evil followers, or that he wouldn't grant evil followers powers), otherwise it's just some way to force fluff into mechanics that doesn't work out very well. Why can't there be a disciplined Barbarian who willingly gives in to his more chaotic side (ala Mace Windu, who's saber style is almost exactly a controlled rage), why can't there be a neutral good character who puts up with the discipline of a monk's training because he sees it as the best option for gaining power? Why can't a Bard stay in one place, as a minstrel and advisory to a King?

prufock
2010-05-16, 08:22 AM
Thog changes back to chaotic from lawful.

Thog now fulfills all the prerequisites for raging (nonlafwul alignment) and taking barbarian levels (nonlawful alignment).

The rules aren't worded this way.

sofawall
2010-05-16, 10:52 AM
Sofawall is Correct

Oddly enough, that's the first time I've ever read that on the boards.

Knaight
2010-05-16, 11:05 AM
Sofawall is Correct :ninja:

Also I'd like to add to all the people "justifying" the alignment restriction on barbarians: ... what? Only the alignment restrictions based on the gods make any sense (it makes sense that Heironeous wouldn't want any evil followers, or that he wouldn't grant evil followers powers), otherwise it's just some way to force fluff into mechanics that doesn't work out very well. Why can't there be a disciplined Barbarian who willingly gives in to his more chaotic side (ala Mace Windu, who's saber style is almost exactly a controlled rage), why can't there be a neutral good character who puts up with the discipline of a monk's training because he sees it as the best option for gaining power? Why can't a Bard stay in one place, as a minstrel and advisory to a King?

The best part of the barbarian is that they can wear medium armor proficiently, have sword and lance proficiencies, and have Ride as a class skill. Meaning a mailed Arthurian knight is doable within that, as long as they are chaotic. Given that the Arthurian legends usually consist of fights where one person gets really really angry then turns the tables (or one sided fights), rage makes sense. So does a lawful alignment, but the arbitrary restriction cuts out the easiest way to mechanically model the characters combat tendencies.