Monk Levels

I'm playing a Monk, and I'm planning on multicalssing him at some point due to Monk's not getting all their abilities past a certain level.

I'm thinking about taking a couple levels of Rogue for the skills and sneak attack. I'd like some opinions on what level I should start multicalssing and whcih class would work best for a Monk.

 

Sorcerer might not be a bad idea. Even if you dip into for sorcerer for one level, you can pick up shield and true strike. True strike eats a turn, but then you could use some of the monk feats without fear of missing.

As I recall all the monk nonsense isn't a shield bonus, so a single cast of shield covers you the battle and your AC sky rockets up.

 

Rogue is a solid choice. However, if you wanted your monk to have rogue class abilities and skills and also be able to sling some spells, you could have the monk train for 6 or 7 levels as a bard.

With respect to the 3+ version rules, you could ask the house rules lawyer, Kalshane, for his opinion on what particular level to start multiclassing and what levels you need to have the monk train in the other class.

Just a funny thought...a monk takes one barbarian level, buffs for a fight and uses barbarian rage!.. ha

 

Unfortunately, that won't work in ToEE, as you can't change alignments. Monks have to be lawful and barbarians can't be. In PNP you could play a monk, undergo an alignment change (which would prevent you from advancing in monk, but not remove any of the monk abilities already gained) then become a barbarian, though.

As far as the best level for classing out of monk in ToEE, I'm not sure, as I'm not sure which abilities don't work correctly.

That said, as others have suggested, sorcerer/wizard or rogue mesh with monk well enough. (Example:Take Monk up to 9th or 10th. Class into rogue. Take two weapon fighting and improved two weapon fighting, get a pair of magical handaxes or kamas and use flurry of blows combined with TWF to make 5 sneak attacks a round.) Monks get enough cool toys that I generally keep them single-classed, though.

 

Another thing to dislike about this rules set. Barbarians are born; they are not something one is made.

 

same thing goes for sorcerers

 

I agree that barbarians are born, if I was running a tabletop game I wouldn't allow someone to take levels in barbarian as a second class. They would ahve to start the game as one.

I disagree with Sorcerer though, just because you don't start your career as one doesn't mean you don't have the natural talent to be one. This could be explained several different ways.

But either way I don't like multiclassing as a rule. If/when I do it I have a very specific idea for a character. For instance, I would never take a level in spellcaster just for 1 or 2 spells. It's much easier to buy potions, or just have the resident caster in the group take a wand.

 

Ted, I'd take your logic a bit further, and apply it to many clerical mixes. They'd be the exceptional examples of the followers of a particular deity, emulating even more of that beings particular talents.

 

Mizard/cleric(Boccob) is almost a gibbon, I mean given, some DM's I know req. this Multclass of Boccob's clerics. This has nothing to do w/ original post , though. For those wondering what a mizard is , it is a wizard who has gained his abilities through miserly studies. I think thats it.

 

Sounds kinda "Fupid" if you ask me.

 

how about a 7 monk/ 13 paladin pg?
you can cast divine, use monk abilities and paladins smite and lay on handas abilities...
no problem for allignements and u just have to take monk level first.
due to no multiclass needed for the paladin

 

Unless you have a specific concept in mind, I don't see it as particularly advantageous over straight monk or straight paladin. Especially since Paladins are geared towards wearing heavy armor, whereas a monk can't wear any armor in order to use a vast majority of their abilities.