Multi-classing monks. Why not?

Apparently Dave Noonan is not only reading our blog, but he's also monitoring our Google chat. That sly devil. ;-)

Just the other day Crwth and I briefly discussed monks and multi-classing which brought to light that my current character is pretty blatantly illegal. Oops. We are using the Unearthed Arcana's variant rules on gestalt characters, so that's my loophole. Yeah. That's it.

Anyways, in Dave's latest blog he discusses how the multi-classing restrictions applied to the monk and paladin classes were regrettably left in 3.0/3.5. I curse those playtesters who advised keeping that insane and pointless restriction in the game. I wish I could smack them around a little.

As Dave says, "The path of the paladin "requires a constant heart," but a cleric or a druid can multiclass freely? The dedication and study of a monk exceeds that of a wizard? Baloney."

I whole heartedly agree. It just doesn't make sense on any level. In fact, it's the main reason I've never played a 3.0/3.5 monk or paladin. Even when I've felt the urge to play a lawful character, I just can't get over the multi-class restrictions. Too bad because I had a really fun idea for a cowardly paladin/rogue. And a monk/rogue would be damn cool too.

Oh well. Maybe in 4e.

Damn playtesters.

Hi Dave

I'm certain that Dave Noonan reads this blog, since he seems to address the questions and concerns I bring up here in his next blog. So on that note, this post will be about me being a playtester.

Just kidding.

Noonan cleared up a few things about the wizard implements which had me concerned. Specifically, they don't define your wizard, just enhance your wizard, which was my biggest issue. His analogy with the fighter and her weapon choice made a lot of sense, and is what I was hoping for.

Perhaps I'm becoming too much of a doomsday player, expecting the worst of 4th edition. So far, though, the little tidbits that we've gleaned have been more positive than negative, so I should probably try switching to "assuming they're doing it right" instead of "assuming they're doing it wrong."