PDA

View Full Version : "Muchkin"



Kompera
2007-09-19, 07:12 PM
So, I've read a lot of feedback posts on D&D 3.5, and often I encounter the term "Munchkin" in regards to the system. I know what it means, or at least I think I do. It's also called "Min-maxing", "Power gaming", etc. But what I have failed to see is examples. And the label without examples leads me to confusion.

Context: I'm currently playing in a campaign which is at the 3rd level range. I rolled a Human Barbarian2/Figher1. This is my GMs first foray into the 3.5 system, and after reading the rules I gave him a call and said I needed to have a long chat with him about how things work in 3.5 as compared to AD&D. The first thing I said was "Any group of D&D 3.5 characters could cut through the equivalent AD&D group like a hot knife through butter". It's obvious after even a cursory reading of the rules. Stat bonuses at much lower values, spell bonuses for mage-types as well as cleric-types, and Feats. Most definitely Feats... My 3rd level D&D 3.5 character could probably beat a 4th through 6th level AD&D Fighter hands down.

The second thing I said to him was "I need to talk to you about my Feats, and what you're comfortable with regarding the game mechanics and Feats. I'm considering taking Cleave, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip as my Feats, and I want to be sure you're going to be OK with this. I will be able to trip and free attack a good number of scrub humanoid types, possibly some boss monster types, and they will have some combat penalties for being on the ground and will suffer AOO for standing up. The alternative to this is that I put my Feats towards being a melee monster. Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the Feat from the Complete Warrior book which allows a player to wield two bastard swords (name not remembered at this time).

Both of these options seem, well, munchkin like, to me. But both are valid and perfectly reasonable options for a melee type character at 3rd level in the D&D 3.5 system. And looking at the options available to the other classes, this kind of focus on a particular path of power seems rather typical, and even necessary to some extent.

So what is the opinion of the community at large? Is it the game system itself which is "munchkin", or is it only certain options for character development which are "munchkin"? Is a melee type expected to spread his/her Feats out in order to avoid this label? Or are there other combinations of Feats I have missed which earn the "munchkin" label?

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-19, 07:20 PM
Actually those are very un-munchkin, especially your TWF build. A melee Munchkin build would have Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper and be a Bull Rush/Charge monster. TWF is hardly the way to go unless you are going Warblade with tons of Tiger Claw maneuvers. If you want the most munchkin of all, check out Logic Ninja's Guide to being Batman (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19085&highlight=Logic+Ninja%27s+guide).

Other examples of munchkins are druids with the Natural Spell feat, and CoDzilla's. I'll let others expand on that.

Edit: By the way, Exotic Weapon Proficiency is always a wasted feat, especially with the Dwarven Waraxe and Bastard Sword. Both can be used two-handed and any good fighter with have a two-handed weapon, though Greatsword is better. If you go sword & board, go with longsword, if you go THW, go greatsword. Also, a TWF rogue is a good buuild with focusing on getting a lot of sneak attacks, not weapon damage.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 07:22 PM
Even those aren't munchkins, at least in the original sense of the term.

Originally, a munchkin was somebody who intentionally bent or even broke the rules in order to make a mechanically superior character.

Dhavaer
2007-09-19, 07:26 PM
Yes, I'm pretty sure the term 'munchkin' requires at least some degree of cheating. What you are describing is powergaming.

horseboy
2007-09-19, 07:33 PM
Well, the context of "munchkin" depended on the game. The "Temple of the Munchkin" was dedicated to wring every last bit of power from the system that you could. Course that was BT. With D&D it's more (from my understanding) nothing but a mechanical character that's made for maximum kill ratio. As opposed to a character that had a good back story explaining why he was driven to seek that level of power.

Douglas
2007-09-19, 07:38 PM
Powergaming, aka min-maxing and optimizing, is designing a character to have good powerful strengths and few and mostly minor weaknesses, and in general be powerful in combat.

A munchkin is someone who at the very least bends and usually breaks the rules to enable his powergaming. For example, a munchkin might tell a DM what a particular feat or spell does but neglect to mention some of its limitations or drawbacks and then proceed to ignore the parts he didn't tell the DM about and hope that the DM doesn't actually look it up.

As powergaming goes, the things you mentioned are really minor. There are many far more powerful ways to build a character in D&D 3.5, though most of them don't really start to shine until at least a few levels higher.

Matthew
2007-09-19, 07:39 PM
Yeah, Munchkin usually refers to somebody attempting through cheating to create a mechanically superior Character. A for instance, would be someone knowing full well that the 3.5 Monkey Grip does not allow you to Two Weapon Fight with Great Swords taking it in order to do so.

Really, though, a Munchkin is somebody who does not play the game in the spirit that it was intended (though precisely what that might be is open to debate).

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 07:44 PM
This would be a case of power gaming, or to be more specific, attempted power gaming.

Cleave = useful sometimes
TWF = only good if you have a source of bonus damage (namely sneak attack)
Wielding 2 bastard swords for 3 or 4 feats means you will make two attacks at -4, and only do 2d10+double strength (let's say it's 16), so you get, on average, 17 damage. Of course, your likelihood of hitting sucks. Two handing a greatsword, and taking power attack, nets you, on average, 17 damage, for the same penalty to hit. You can of course charge, and halve that penalty, which means you can do more damage, more reliably, with fewer feats, as only a standard action. Later on, you can make that charge a leap attack and sink the penalty to hit into your AC, which means you will most likely hit your enemy, and do massive damage; enough to make them fort save. Note also that power attack scales with level; your two bastard swords won't, and it will be twice as expensive to keep them sharp and magical.

While I can appreciate your attempts at power gaming, you aren't doing a very good job. Which I guess wouldn't make you a powergamer, except maybe in spirit.

Starsinger
2007-09-19, 07:45 PM
Really, though, a Munchkin is somebody who does not play the game in the spirit that it was intended (though precisely what that might be is open to debate).

The game was intended to be played in a manner that is fun for all involved, and munchkins are rarely conducive to that.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-19, 07:46 PM
A character can be uber in combat and still not be a munchkin. I work on getting high levels of power a lot because I really get into the game and get a good feeling when I chop through waves of impressive monsters and enemies. This is powergaming, not munchkin'ing. A munchkin will actually hamper his own capacity for roleplaying by going out of his way to simply obtain the absolute maximum power possible and will do things like abuse poorly conceived mechanics, make dubious use of mechanics, and will whine the absolute most any time you drop the banhammer. He's liable to try and fudge dice rolls despite being the PC and may "accidentally" write things down wrong, like giving himself too many skill points, an additional feat or two, a few extra AC, attack, and damage points, etc.

A munchkin is an inherently malicious force at the game table. A powergamer is not. Please, please don't confuse the two.

ocato
2007-09-19, 08:06 PM
I have to agree with the general consensus. Pun Pun is munchkinism. Using feats that work well together and planning ahead to be able to use strategies and tactics in battle is simply good character making. I mean, the guy who's fighter is like dodge/weapon focus/ combat reflexes/ toughness is not somehow inherently more RP or more in the spirit of the game. Those aren't horrible feats (okay, they're not great either), but that character vs the character who's feats all work together and he plows through his enemies, who is gonna have more fun? The dead guy wearing his Stormwing Fallacy badge or the guy who's character "the master swordsman" is build to sword men masterfully. Don't worry about being a munchkin, just strive to be around the same power level as your party. Because its when the party all feels valuable and as if they are contributing semi-equally is when fun is most likely to occur.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-19, 08:12 PM
As opposed to a character that had a good back story explaining why he was driven to seek that level of power.
Because in AD&D we tried to make the weakest characters possible and with THAC0 went our desire to turn D&D into anything more than a videogame.

Kompera
2007-09-19, 08:31 PM
Um, wow. I'm fairly overwhelmed at the number of replies within the short period of time from my original post.

Some attempts at replies to the replies:

To Tor
While I can appreciate your attempts at power gaming, you aren't doing a very good job. Which I guess wouldn't make you a powergamer, except maybe in spirit.Eh, I'm not really attempting to power game. I was mostly commenting on the game mechanics which make for a potent melee machine for any 3rd level D&D 3.5 character. I'm not at all trying to power game, or I wouldn't be expressing my concerns to my GM and allowing him feedback on my character development.

Dhavaer
Yes, I'm pretty sure the term 'munchkin' requires at least some degree of cheating. What you are describing is powergaming.

Various: That's not really munchkin, it's powergaming (or attempts at power gaming)

I should point out that Leap Attack and Shock Trooper are completely unknown to my gaming group. We use the core books and a few of the additional books, but we don't own the whole set by any stretch. Psionics, for example, is expressly disallowed in the campaign.

I'm not interested in cheating, and I'm not even interested in power gaming. It simply seemed to me as though nearly any route a fighter type took would lead to some fairly intense (WRT same level AD&D characters) combat advantages, unless he/she deliberately went a bit scatter-shot on Feat selection.

What Feat selection would be considered to be non-powergaming? Perhaps I should provide further background info. My GM has a fairly stat-friendly character generation system, so I've got:
STR: 18
DEX: 17
CON: 15
INT: 13
WIS: 12
CHA: 10

The STR gives me +4 hit/damage, already making me a melee monster compared to a AD&D character. Power Attack lets my character lose (at 3rd level) 3 of the +7 attack bonus in exchange for +3 damage on a hit. And it seems as though the character nearly always hits. The +4 damage gives the character a very decent amount of Cleave opportunities, even without Great Cleave. Adding to this an AOO for a Tripped foe standing up, a free attack against a Tripped opponent for Imp. Trip, and the combat bonuses for the rest of the party, Imp Trip seems to be a very potent Feat.
-OR-
Dual Wielding Bastard Swords gives an extra attack (like Cleave or Improved Trip can, but with different mechanics), and the other Feats give extra +Hit or extra attacks. Kind of the same effect, just without the Trip mechanics.

Both are what I would call 'fairly obvious' paths for melee characters. Both could be called "munchkin" or "power gaming", but what are the alternatives? A 2nd Barbarian/1st Fighter with Endurance, Blind-Fight, Great Fortitude, and Agile just seems silly, despite any attempts to craft a story which supports such Feat selections.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-19, 08:34 PM
Let me put this simply.

Munchkining is breaking the rules (faking your dice rolls, using DM-banned material), or abusing the game into unplayability (Infinite Loop builds like Pun-Pun, who was only meant as an exercise in theory people, God).

Powergaming is using the rules to make your character powerful, simple as that (taking Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shocktrooper/Frenzied Berserker, playing a high-level Wizard and trying even a little).

And no, Kompera, what you're doing isn't either.


Both could be called "munchkin" or "power gaming"
Not reasonably.

You're not playing AD&D, the numbers mean much different things here than they do there, in terms of magnitude. Nothing you're talking about is a "combat monster" or broken in any sense of the term.

And personally, I'd go with the PA/Cleave/Trip build. That makes you a very good swarm-o-mooks killer. Be sure to pick up Combat Reflexes and a reach weapon so you can AoO-trip folks just for walking up to you.

Mr. Moogle
2007-09-19, 08:36 PM
QUOTE:
The second thing I said to him was "I need to talk to you about my Feats, and what you're comfortable with regarding the game mechanics and Feats. I'm considering taking Cleave, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip as my Feats, and I want to be sure you're going to be OK with this. I will be able to trip and free attack a good number of scrub humanoid types, possibly some boss monster types, and they will have some combat penalties for being on the ground and will suffer AOO for standing up. The alternative to this is that I put my Feats towards being a melee monster. Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the Feat from the Complete Warrior book which allows a player to wield two bastard swords (name not remembered at this time).

Its called oversize TWF (for the record it is in the complete adventurer) and i wouldnt go for bastard swords, I'd go with warmaces (in complete warrior

Arbitrarity
2007-09-19, 08:38 PM
I have to agree with the general consensus. Pun Pun is munchkinism.


Objection! Pun-pun was not munchkin, Pun-Pun was a theroetical exercise. When it says in the thread "Dude, you're not supposed to play Pun-Pun", it means it's a logic/math attempt. Munchkin's go for in-game power, the CO boards go for theroetical/logical power.

Some people have fun doing calculus to determine that you dealt over (2.5*10^36530)^^73600 damage. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=8378468&postcount=58)

Other laugh evilly at large numbers. But no one actually plays the build, except actual munchkins.

Blame not the CO boards. Take their creations in the spirit they were intended, as logical absurdities, loopholes, and generally as entertainment, not as actual players who wish to horribly, horribly break games.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-19, 08:39 PM
Kompera, I don't think you get what we are saying. I'll be blunt here and say that your choices in TWF don't qualify as "good". In fact, just the opposite. Why waste your precious few feats getting TWF when they can be spent on other, more effective things.

Also, to help you out a little, here's my advice for you character.

Change all levels in fighter to Warblade. Right now.
Don't TWF if you want to be pretty strong (although I myself am guilty of TWFing)

Also, munchkining is stuff like drinking potions of deity control. Power gaming is potions of girallon's blessing. Nerfed is drinking cure serious wounds in the middle of a battle.

Bassetking
2007-09-19, 08:43 PM
Power Attack lets my character lose (at 3rd level) 3 of the +7 attack bonus in exchange for +3 damage on a hit.

So, Roll a Half Orc. Take your first level as a Lion Totem Barbarian variant from "Complete Champion" and trade your Barbarian's Fast Movement for REND.

You can now make a full attack at the end of your charge.

Pick up Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Heedless Charge, and be certain to use a THW.

Shock Trooper allows you to dump your AC into + Damage, instead of your + Hit.

Leap Attack allows, with a 10' leap, you to deal triple damage on a Power Attack, instead of Double, when using a two handed weapon.

Heedless Charge allows anyone along your path to take an AoO at you. In exchange, you double the entirety of the damage dealt by your charging attack.

With an itterative attack, you are now turning AC to Damage, tripling the damage of every attack, performing your full iterative attack at the end of a charge, and are doubling the entirety of the damage dealt by the Full Attack Action.

THAT'S Powergaming.

EDIT: Thank you, Arbitrarity, for realizing that not all of us who contributed to the "Campaign Smashers" did so to actually try and sneak one past our DM's.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-19, 08:46 PM
So, I've read a lot of feedback posts on D&D 3.5, and often I encounter the term "Munchkin" in regards to the system. I know what it means, or at least I think I do. It's also called "Min-maxing", "Power gaming", etc. But what I have failed to see is examples. And the label without examples leads me to confusion.

Your paragraph was the equivalent of saying:
duck, crocodiles, and oak trees are the same word.
The Munchkin cheats: either through loopholes in the rules (such as Pun-pun), unstated rules (Dead status technically doesn't stop movement), etc.

Powergaming: gaming and making self minmaxed.

Min-Maxers: Minimizing weakness, Maximizes strengths. It is what any reasonable person does to an extent in such a dangerous world as D&D.
the amount of Min-maxing is what differs among people.

Failed attempts: Bad saves (not minimizing), bad weaponry, bad feats (sounding better than they are), etc.



Context: I'm currently playing in a campaign which is at the 3rd level range. I rolled a Human Barbarian2/Figher1. This is my GMs first foray into the 3.5 system, and after reading the rules I gave him a call and said I needed to have a long chat with him about how things work in 3.5 as compared to AD&D. The first thing I said was "Any group of D&D 3.5 characters could cut through the equivalent AD&D group like a hot knife through butter".

Not true.
18/00 Str is alot higher bonuses than 18 Str in D&D.
AC was worse I'll admit. But Fighters could move and full attack in 2.0 (specialize enough and you can).
Create Water was not prohibited from being created in others (a save or die).



It's obvious after even a cursory reading of the rules. Stat bonuses at much lower values, spell bonuses for mage-types as well as cleric-types, and Feats. Most definitely Feats... My 3rd level D&D 3.5 character could probably beat a 4th through 6th level AD&D Fighter hands down.

Did you ever specialize in 2.0 edition?
You can be pretty beefy with that.

Now, you'll hit the 2.0 Fighter more (AC stopped at -10, which is AC 30 I think), but he will deal more damage I think.



The second thing I said to him was "I need to talk to you about my Feats, and what you're comfortable with regarding the game mechanics and Feats. I'm considering taking Cleave, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip as my Feats, and I want to be sure you're going to be OK with this. I will be able to trip and free attack a good number of scrub humanoid types, possibly some boss monster types, and they will have some combat penalties for being on the ground and will suffer AOO for standing up.

Drawbacks:
Tripping is fail to trip has chance to be counter tripped. Yes, you can be tripped by rolling a bad trip attempt.
Not all weapons can be used for tripping well.
Cleave is useful is lots of weak guys around you, but not a few strong ones.




The alternative to this is that I put my Feats towards being a melee monster. Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Exotic Weapon: Bastard Sword, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the Feat from the Complete Warrior book which allows a player to wield two bastard swords (name not remembered at this time).

Over sized Weapon feat? The one that lowers penalties for twfing 2 one handed stuff.
TWfing feat: is want wo weapons, needed.
2 Bastardswords? I guess.

Remember, you can only move 5 foot a round and get all your attacks. If you move more than that: you can only make a single attack.


Both of these options seem, well, munchkin like, to me. But both are valid and perfectly reasonable options for a melee type character at 3rd level in the D&D 3.5 system. And looking at the options available to the other classes, this kind of focus on a particular path of power seems rather typical, and even necessary to some extent.

Well, to me that is weak.
If I was going to for Twfing:

I'd go Greatsword and armor spikes. Reasons?
When I must make 1 attack greatsword deals 2d6 + 1.5 Str.

When I full attack, I get both attacks and while my offhand will do less, my main hand does more.
So I even out better than yours.
Assuming both have 16 Str

2d6 (average 7) + 1.5 Str
1d6 (average 3.5) + 0.5 Str
I deal 10.5 + 5 Str damage=15.5 average if both hit.

Benefits:
one feat: TWFing.
Con:
I do less max damage (12 +6=18, vs 10+10=20)

vs.

1d10(average 5.5) + Str
1d10 (average 5.5) + 0.5 Str
You deal 11 +4 Str damage =15 on average if both hit.


Benefits: 2 bastardsword might look cooler.
Con: wasted 3 feats to do same damage.



So what is the opinion of the community at large? Is it the game system itself which is "munchkin", or is it only certain options for character development which are "munchkin"? Is a melee type expected to spread his/her Feats out in order to avoid this label? Or are there other combinations of Feats I have missed which earn the "munchkin" label?

Nope, game fine. You just are new. After playing thr game you'll see how the guy isn't that great as a "munchkin" would be.

Matthew
2007-09-19, 08:53 PM
18/00 Str is alot higher bonuses than 18 Str in D&D.

It's actually about the same. +3 AB/+6 DB versus +4 AB/+4 DB. With a Two Handed Weapon it's actually better +3AB/+6 DB versus +4 AB/+6 DB.


Did you ever specialize in 2.0 edition?
You can be pretty beefy with that.

It was pretty good, but 1e Double Weapon Specialisation was the real monster.

That said, Fighters at Levels 1-9 in 3e suck compared to AD&D Fighters 1-9. Saving Throws were better, Attack Numbers were better, Specialisation was available from the get go. Just about the only thing they have going for them in 3e is their Feats and Attribute Adjustments, which are available to all.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 08:56 PM
Um, wow. I'm fairly overwhelmed at the number of replies within the short period of time from my original post.

These boards are full of optimizers and power gamers. They get all worked up whenever anyone dares criticize what they do. Sort of HILARIOUS.


Eh, I'm not really attempting to power game. I was mostly commenting on the game mechanics which make for a potent melee machine for any 3rd level D&D 3.5 character. I'm not at all trying to power game, or I wouldn't be expressing my concerns to my GM and allowing him feedback on my character development.

Oh yeah, 3.x is a whole different game than the older versions. Players are supposed to win. Monsters operate by the same statistics, though, which means they're tougher too. While you may be stronger than the AD&D fighter, you're not necessarily tougher than the 3.x monster.



I should point out that Leap Attack and Shock Trooper are completely unknown to my gaming group. We use the core books and a few of the additional books, but we don't own the whole set by any stretch. Psionics, for example, is expressly disallowed in the campaign.

I think both those feats are from complete warrior.


I'm not interested in cheating, and I'm not even interested in power gaming. It simply seemed to me as though nearly any route a fighter type took would lead to some fairly intense (WRT same level AD&D characters) combat advantages, unless he/she deliberately went a bit scatter-shot on Feat selection.

The fighter has a handful of routes, and rather counter intuitively, a non-specialized route ends up being the best in the end.

Getting really, really good with a greatsword, for instance, sucks when you're in the Dungeon of Grapple, or blew a bunch of feats of weapon focus that in the end, only increase your to hit by 3 or 4%.

TWF with bastard swords would not only look hilarious, but would be suboptimal compared to a straight sword and board or two handed weapon.

Sure, any route you take will make you superior to an AD&D fighter; that doesn't make you superior to the 3.5 monsters.


What Feat selection would be considered to be non-powergaming? Perhaps I should provide further background info.

Chargers are about the most powergamey fighter type you can make. All they do are hit things really hard, once. Then they take up space. Personally, I'd carry a heavy wooden shield, a longsword, a greatsword, greataxe or greatclub, and a strength rated composite longbow. I'd take quickdraw, power attack, combat expertise and improved trip. With quick draw, you can swiftly switch between weapons, power attack for damage, or sword and board + expertise to keep from getting hit. I'd think about getting blind-fight later on, and depending on if your DM likes throwing mobs, cleave. Perhaps switch out imp trip for cleave, or swap a barb level for another fighter level for another feat, then continue barb level progression.

Now, you'll hear a lot of disparaging comments about combat expertise, but at low levels, against monsters you may not be able to do much about due to their resistances/DR, it's pretty nice. Or, say, against low AC monsters that can devastate you, such as worgs w/ trip, or volleys of goblin arrows.



Both are what I would call 'fairly obvious' paths for melee characters. Both could be called "munchkin" or "power gaming", but what are the alternatives? A 2nd Barbarian/1st Fighter with Endurance, Blind-Fight, Great Fortitude, and Agile just seems silly, despite any attempts to craft a story which supports such Feat selections.

Blind-fight can be pretty good, endurance means when your DM ambushes you in the night, you've already got armor on.

As far as core feats go, you really don't have much to work with, and nothing you do will be much of a powergaming sort of thing, since the wizard is just going to end the encounter in a spell or two, anyway.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-19, 08:58 PM
Blind-fight can be pretty good, endurance means when your DM ambushes you in the night, you've already got armor on.

As far as core feats go, you really don't have much to work with, and nothing you do will be much of a powergaming sort of thing, since the wizard is just going to end the encounter in a spell or two, anyway.

Endurance only works for meduim armor: as anyone can wear light armor and sleep.

Most warriors wear heavy (except Barbarians and rangers).

Kompera
2007-09-19, 09:00 PM
Kompera, I don't think you get what we are saying. I'll be blunt here and say that your choices in TWF don't qualify as "good". In fact, just the opposite. Why waste your precious few feats getting TWF when they can be spent on other, more effective things.Well, my predilection for either Imp Trip or TWF may stem from the game mechanics. Imp Trip gives me a free attack at tripped opponents. TWF gives me two decent chances to hit. THW gives me an excellent chance to hit, and excellent damage. But a miss is still a miss. TWF gives me more chances to not miss.


Also, to help you out a little, here's my advice for you character.

Change all levels in fighter to Warblade. Right now.
Don't TWF if you want to be pretty strong (although I myself am guilty of TWFing)

Also, munchkining is stuff like drinking potions of deity control. Power gaming is potions of girallon's blessing. Nerfed is drinking cure serious wounds in the middle of a battle.I don't even know what a Warblade is, or what reference it comes from. The potions I have no idea about save for the cure serious wounds potions. We're fairly 'core' in my group, with a few exceptions and a few exclusions. Several posters have suggested Feats which do not exist in our lexicon and classes (prestige classes?) which do not exist in our lexicon. Doesn't anyone play the core game anymore? Or have the expansions taken over the player base? (Hey, perhaps I've discovered the meaning of 'munchkin' after all!?)

Is TWF considered to be a poor option for a melee character? It always served me well in NWN...

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-19, 09:00 PM
It simply seemed to me as though nearly any route a fighter type took would lead to some fairly intense (WRT same level AD&D characters) combat advantages, unless he/she deliberately went a bit scatter-shot on Feat selection.

The STR gives me +4 hit/damage, already making me a melee monster compared to a AD&D character.
You're comparing two entirely different systems. Your concerns are equivalent to worries that Chess is a higher-powered game than Checkers.


THW gives me an excellent chance to hit, and excellent damage. But a miss is still a miss. TWF gives me more chances to not miss
But your hits are worth less and are made at a penalty. The game does not simulate reality: a stab wound is not a stab wound; a stab wound is quantified in HP, which Two Handed fighting removes more easily than Two Weapon Fighting.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 09:02 PM
Endurance only works for meduim armor: as anyone can wear light armor and sleep.

Most warriors wear heavy (except Barbarians and rangers).

And who isn't waltzing around in mithral full plate these days?

Edit:
He also has a 17 in dex, which means heavy armor is strictly crappier, until he can get that mithral full plate. Also costs more, considerably more, as a 3rd level character.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 09:09 PM
Is TWF considered to be a poor option for a melee character? It always served me well in NWN...

Yes.

You can't move and get your two attacks at the same time. So in order for you to do damage, you must first let your opponent do damage. And there are some truly nasty things out there that you don't want going first.

On the other hand, a charge build, or a simple power attack + two handed weapon (note that you get double the power attack bonus when you two hand) will do a roughly equivalent amount of damage, with a higher chance to hit, and a greater chance of knocking your opponent into the dust, even if it's a surprise round (a round where you may only make one action- a charge).

Now I don't know how your games run, but in everyone I've played and ran and watched, the vast majority of combat started out with the monsters on one side and the players on the other, with 10' of space in between.

This is not to say that you can't make a good twf build- a rogue with a couple short swords can deal mean damage if he's flanking with the party fighter. He also gets a ton more skills, and tumble lets him move through AoO.

BCOVertigo
2007-09-19, 09:13 PM
These boards are full of optimizers and power gamers. They get all worked up whenever anyone dares criticize what they do. Sort of HILARIOUS.

SHUN THE NONBELIEVER! SHUUUUUUUUUU, UUUUUUNNUH!

ocato
2007-09-19, 09:13 PM
You're comparing two entirely different systems. Your concerns are equivalent to worries that Chess is a higher-powered game than Checkers.


But your hits are worth less and are made at a penalty. The game does not simulate reality: a stab wound is not a stab wound; a stab wound is quantified in HP, which Two Handed fighting removes more easily than Two Weapon Fighting.

Nerf Rooks!

horseboy
2007-09-19, 09:14 PM
Well, my predilection for either Imp Trip or TWF may stem from the game mechanics. Imp Trip gives me a free attack at tripped opponents. TWF gives me two decent chances to hit. THW gives me an excellent chance to hit, and excellent damage. But a miss is still a miss. TWF gives me more chances to not miss.

For a good core trip fighter, I'd recommend Improved Init. If you get init, on the second round hold your action until they stand up. They go to stand, you make your AoO. They stand up, you take your attack, trip him again, take another AoO. Good for keeping the enemy on the ground. And good tanking because nobody in the party gets hurt.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-19, 09:18 PM
Is TWF considered to be a poor option for a melee character? It always served me well in NWN...

It's not optimized, if that's what you mean. The math supports the 2H-Power Attack route. That said, it's still a pretty decent - and in my opinion, fun - build.

And as for Munchkins... Behold Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior! (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050703.html) Munchkin'ing isn't powergaming, it's powergaming taken to the extreme.

Edea
2007-09-19, 09:22 PM
Munchkins are what you find in a flimsy, specially-shaped cardboard box after you've been inside a certain pastry shop. They're small and chocolatey and covered with a sweet, crispy glaze. One must take care to eat the entire box, so as to not commit the mortal sin of sharing them with the unclean heathens known as 'moochers.'

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 09:22 PM
For a good core trip fighter, I'd recommend Improved Init. If you get init, on the second round hold your action until they stand up. They go to stand, you make your AoO. They stand up, you take your attack, trip him again, take another AoO. Good for keeping the enemy on the ground. And good tanking because nobody in the party gets hurt.


Oooh, imp trip is a FANTASTIC core, low level feat. Stays good at high ones, too, but especially good at low, when your enemies' dex is still reasonably low.

Kompera
2007-09-19, 09:27 PM
Yes.

You can't move and get your two attacks at the same time. So in order for you to do damage, you must first let your opponent do damage. And there are some truly nasty things out there that you don't want going first.

On the other hand, a charge build, or a simple power attack + two handed weapon (note that you get double the power attack bonus when you two hand) will do a roughly equivalent amount of damage, with a higher chance to hit, and a greater chance of knocking your opponent into the dust, even if it's a surprise round (a round where you may only make one action- a charge).

Now I don't know how your games run, but in everyone I've played and ran and watched, the vast majority of combat started out with the monsters on one side and the players on the other, with 10' of space in between.

This is not to say that you can't make a good twf build- a rogue with a couple short swords can deal mean damage if he's flanking with the party fighter. He also gets a ton more skills, and tumble lets him move through AoO.TWF and a two-headed weapon seems to give the best of both worlds. In the cases where the character gets only a single attack the character chooses THW damage. In the case where the character gets multiple attacks the character gets multiple attacks and gets one-hand weapon damage.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-19, 09:30 PM
TWF and a two-headed weapon seems to give the best of both worlds. In the cases where the character gets only a single attack the character chooses THW damage. In the case where the character gets multiple attacks the character gets multiple attacks and gets one-hand weapon damage.

If your do it with armor spikes, yeah, definitely. But dual bastard swords? Core only, that's a -4 to hit.

Matthew
2007-09-19, 09:31 PM
You're comparing two entirely different systems. Your concerns are equivalent to worries that Chess is a higher-powered game than Checkers.

This is level related. At high levels, yeah, but at low levels it's pretty much the same. A Level 1 Fighter and an Orc have the same sort of Hit Points and Armour Class as they do in AD&D. What they tend to have more of is AB and DB.


AD&D Orc
THAC0: 19 (3e AB +1)
Damage: 1D8
Armour Class: 7 (3e AC 13)
Hit Points: 1D8

3e Orc
Attack Bonus: +4
Damage: 2D4+3
Armour Class: 13
Hit Points: 1D8+1



(assuming Elite Array, 2e Weapon Specialisation and 3e Weapon Focus)

AD&D Fighter
THAC0: 19 (AB +1) [Attack Rate: 3/2]
Damage: 1D8+2
Armour Class: 4 (3e 16)
Hit Points: 10

3e Fighter
Attack Bonus: +4
Damage: 1D8+2
Armour Class: 17
Hit Points: 12

Arbitrarity
2007-09-19, 09:54 PM
Is TWF considered to be a poor option for a melee character? It always served me well in NWN...

Let's put it this way. My first NWN character ended up being a wizard dual wielding bastard swords.

Yes. It hurts. This was before I understood mechanics AT ALL.

It's true. Really. His only saving grace was being a wizard.

Why? Because in NWN, you have to rest every 10 mins or so if you're a caster involved in many fights (i.e. way too many encounters), and so, to "conserve" spell slots... yeah.

*weeps in shame*

Jayabalard
2007-09-19, 09:59 PM
Yes, I'm pretty sure the term 'munchkin' requires at least some degree of cheating. What you are describing is powergaming.Nah, it just takes the "I pick the one with the most plusses" attitude. No cheating needed.

Green Bean
2007-09-19, 10:11 PM
Nah, it just takes the "I pick the one with the most plusses" attitude. No cheating needed.


Nah, that's still powergaming, or min-maxing. It would be munchkin-ism if you had the 'I pick the one with the most pluses, and conveniently forget to tell the DM about the minuses that go with it" attitude.

Justin_Bacon
2007-09-19, 11:13 PM
So, I've read a lot of feedback posts on D&D 3.5, and often I encounter the term "Munchkin" in regards to the system. I know what it means, or at least I think I do. It's also called "Min-maxing", "Power gaming", etc. But what I have failed to see is examples. And the label without examples leads me to confusion.

While there's a good-deal of crossover between these terms -- and people will (incorrectly) use them interchangeably -- I find they have more utility with more precise definition.

A min-maxer is someone who tries to gain every bit of mechanical advantage they can from the system. The term originates out of Advantage/Disadvantage systems like HERO and GURPS. In those systems, a min-maxer tries to find the disadvantages that give them the most points to spend while inconveniencing them the least while, simultaneously, trying to find the advantages that benefit them the most while costing them the lease. (They minimize the disadvantages and they maximize their advantages. Min-maxer.)

The reasons for min-maxing are many and varied. For example, I will frequently min-max to pursue a character design. (I want to play the "greatest swordsman in the world", so I try to maximize my melee abilities.) In other cases, people are min-maxing in order to "win" the game or simply to test its mechanical limitations. (For example, look at Pun-Pun. Or, in fact, the entirety of the WotC character optimization boards.)

A power gamer wants their character to excel. They want to play the game and play it well. Min-maxing may be one technique they use to accomplish that. But a power gamer is just as likely to seek power through the mechanisms of the game world as they are through the mechanics of the game system.

A munchkin is a lot like a power gamer, but they want instant gratification. They also frequently show a sloppy disregard for the rules of the game if they get in the way of their instant gratification, and they have almost no respect for the integrity of the game world. Munchkins aren't looking to play the game and play it well, they're looking to "win" or they get some sort of primal glee out of touting the huge numbers that pepper their character sheets. There's an essential immaturity to the munchkin (hence the name).

Monty haul gameplay often accompanies munchkinism, but not always. Basically, in monty haul gameplay, the rewards are out of proportion to the challenge. To take an extreme example, you'll find a +5 holy avenger stashed under the mattress of the goblin you just finished indiscriminately slaying with a single blow. (The term refers to Monty Hall, who used to host the Let's Make a Deal game show. Monty Hall would open a door and contestants would win fabulous prizes. Similarly, in monty haul campaigns, characters face simply challenges -- like opening a door -- and reap huge rewards from it.)


The first thing I said was "Any group of D&D 3.5 characters could cut through the equivalent AD&D group like a hot knife through butter". It's obvious after even a cursory reading of the rules. Stat bonuses at much lower values, spell bonuses for mage-types as well as cleric-types, and Feats.

The comparison is almost meaningless. The numbers are scaled differently in the two systems. Saying "10 is bigger than 100" is meaningless if you're talking about 10 dollars vs. 100 cents.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-20, 12:05 AM
If you get init, on the second round hold your action until they stand up. They go to stand, you make your AoO. They stand up, you take your attack, trip him again, take another AoO. Good for keeping the enemy on the ground. And good tanking because nobody in the party gets hurt.Ooh, somebody is gonna have a rough time on the Attack of Opportunity final come December...

Attacks of Opportunity resolve before the action that provoked them. Here's how the sequence actually plays out.

Step 1: Player trips enemy. (And gets an attack on the enemy if he's got Improved Trip.)
Step 2: Enemy begins to stand up.
Step 3: Player takes Attack of Opportunity
Step 4: Enemy stands up.

Until step 4, the enemy is prone. If you use the AoO to make a trip attempt, you're not doing anything -- he can't become more tripped than he already was. Since your attack resolves before his move action, he's on his feet whether you like it or not.

Dausuul
2007-09-20, 12:06 AM
Munchkindom is an attitude. It's got nothing to do with your build. You can play a single-classed half-orc monk and still be a munchkin.

A munchkin is somebody who sets out to Win D&D. Whether the person succeeds or not is immaterial; most munchkins I've encountered are actually fairly poor optimizers. Munchkins are defined by their desire to have +6 everything, right now, no matter what they have to do to get it; combined with a callous disregard for a) the rules b) the game world c) whether their fellow players are having fun d) whether the DM is having fun e) anything other than having the MOST UBAR CHARACTERZ EVAR!!!

horseboy
2007-09-20, 12:21 AM
Ooh, somebody is gonna have a rough time on the Attack of Opportunity final come December...

Attacks of Opportunity resolve before the action that provoked them. Here's how the sequence actually plays out.

Step 1: Player trips enemy. (And gets an attack on the enemy if he's got Improved Trip.)
Step 2: Enemy begins to stand up.
Step 3: Player takes Attack of Opportunity
Step 4: Enemy stands up.

Until step 4, the enemy is prone. If you use the AoO to make a trip attempt, you're not doing anything -- he can't become more tripped than he already was. Since your attack resolves before his move action, he's on his feet whether you like it or not.
Granted it does take Hold the Line from CW to work best, but enemy charges, fighter trips with Improved trip, takes his free shot. Enemy on butt.
Turn 2
If fighter wins init, he holds his attack until target stands up. Target starts to stand. Fighter takes AoO. When the target stands, fighter's reserved action kicks in. Fighter trips again. Fighter takes free swing again.

Kyeudo
2007-09-20, 12:25 AM
Munchkindom is an attitude. It's got nothing to do with your build. You can play a single-classed half-orc monk and still be a munchkin.

A munchkin is somebody who sets out to Win D&D. Whether the person succeeds or not is immaterial; most munchkins I've encountered are actually fairly poor optimizers. Munchkins are defined by their desire to have +6 everything, right now, no matter what they have to do to get it; combined with a callous disregard for a) the rules b) the game world c) whether their fellow players are having fun d) whether the DM is having fun e) anything other than having the MOST UBAR CHARACTERZ EVAR!!!

Agreed.

Optimizers want to have a character that can always meaningfuly contribute in the broadest set of circumstances. Some are crappy roleplayers, others are pretty good.

Theoretical Optimization is making a character so good at one thing D&D stands on its head and goes "HOW DID HE DO THAT!" However, such characters are usualy thought experiments and so are never used.

Munchkins are the Dark Side of Optimization. They just don't care what the rules say, they just want the power. They try to convince you Monkey Grip and Powerful Build stack so they can wield a Huge Greatsword and PWN their foes off the map FTW!

Bosh
2007-09-20, 01:06 AM
The single biggest thing keeping munchkinism in check is how very bad at it many people are. Monkey grip etc. etc. Most people who play with munchkin characters are people who bend the rules/cheat to make their characters powerful because most people who know the rules well enough to make munchkin characters know how easy it is to break a campaign with one of those characters and show some restraint (or do something fun like making a high-cha half-orc meleer about as powerful as the rest of the members of the party by doing powergaming tricks).

Tengu
2007-09-20, 01:08 AM
TWF and a two-headed weapon seems to give the best of both worlds. In the cases where the character gets only a single attack the character chooses THW damage. In the case where the character gets multiple attacks the character gets multiple attacks and gets one-hand weapon damage.

Not really. Even when full attacking, you're going to deal better damage with a two-handed weapon and several points in power attack.

kme
2007-09-20, 06:58 AM
selection.
What Feat selection would be considered to be non-powergaming? Perhaps I should provide further background info. My GM has a fairly stat-friendly character generation system, so I've got:
STR: 18
DEX: 17
CON: 15
INT: 13
WIS: 12
CHA: 10

The STR gives me +4 hit/damage, already making me a melee monster compared to a AD&D character. Power Attack lets my character lose (at 3rd level) 3 of t.he +7 attack bonus in exchange for +3 damage on a hit. And it seems as though the character nearly always hits. The +4 damage gives the character a very decent amount of Cleave opportunities, even without Great Cleave. Adding to this an AOO for a Tripped foe standing up, a free attack against a Tripped opponent for Imp. Trip, and the combat bonuses for the rest of the party, Imp Trip seems to be a very potent Feat.
-OR-
Dual Wielding Bastard Swords gives an extra attack (like Cleave or Improved Trip can, but with different mechanics), and the other Feats give extra +Hit or extra attacks. Kind of the same effect, just without the Trip mechanics.

Both are what I would call 'fairly obvious' paths for melee characters. Both could be called "munchkin" or "power gaming", but what are the alternatives? A 2nd Barbarian/1st Fighter with Endurance, Blind-Fight, Great Fortitude, and Agile just seems silly, despite any attempts to craft a story which supports such Feat selections.

Yes, some classes/feats/tactics are more powerful than the others.Taking improved trip/spiked chain/combat reflexes in a lower level game will be overpowered in almost every case.With such a combo you will probably end up killing more than a half of the enemies your party face.That is very likely to ruin a game for all other PC who are not optimized, and maybe even for a DM.

It is also stupid if you take a feat that you like, but since it is not really strong one (good example TWF), you will be penalized for playing what you like.

The solution to this, is not to optimize when it is not necessarily.So if you are a wizard, don't boost you INT to the skies, start with 15 not 20, don't take headband of intellect as soon as you can, don't cast a finger of death on boss in the first round.If you want to play a barbarian that jump and attack don't take leap attack, just jump and attack normally, you will still be good killing machine.Etc. etc. etc.

And if you somehow end up with an overpowered ability/feat/class/option.Don't use it every fight on the first round.Use it later in fights and in dramatic situations.The point is not to be the most efficient killer (from the PC point of view, not characters) of DMs monsters, point is to play a game that is fun for everyone.

Tormsskull
2007-09-20, 08:20 AM
To the OP:

I think I know where you are coming from, as I was initially shell-shocked at a lot of the possibilities that all of the feat/skill/mutli-classing/PrCing options bring to the table. Add in splat books and it becomes just insane.

As you have probably guessed by now, the term "munchkin" means different things to different people. A lot of people have tried to define it and get its definition set in stone, but it hasn't met with complete success.

To me a munchkin is someone to tries to achieve character power regardless of what else is affected. They don't have to cheat in the sense of breaking a rule written in the book, they could simply ignore setting, campaign, roleplaying, or any such "fluff" reasons.

For example: Rogue3/Splatbookclass3/SplatbookPrC3/AnotherSplatbookPrC2/another... etc. This I would consider a munchkin, mainly from the fact that I interpret classes to be ways of life rather than a simple collection of skills. And I would view this player as cherrypicking class abilities in order to obtain character power, and focusing on character power means that the player is placing setting/campaign/roleplaying 2nd to mechanical power.

Whenever I have new players join my group (rarely), I have a difficult time breaking them from the mindset of powergaming. Some of them freak out and quit, I say thanks for the attempt. But the ones that stay and play inevitably have a really good time, and not to brag, but tell me that the campaign they played was the best ever. I think alot of that has to do with the other players around the table though, as they are a great group.

Winterwind
2007-09-20, 08:40 AM
To me, the entire difference between a "normal" roleplayer and a munchkin lies in the attitude.

A normal roleplayer chooses the attributes and skills in such a way that they represent the character (s)he wants to play as best as possible. That character can be anything, including a mighty warrior - that's a perfectly valid fantasy stereotype and there is no reason why somebody would not choose to play this one. However, no matter what the character can or cannot do, even if it's an incredibly optimised combat character, the only reason why this character is that way because it's part of the character's personality - optimisation as means to representing a given character concept, not as a goal of its own.

On the other hand, a munchkin does not care about character concepts or roleplaying, only about numbers. A low attribute in, say, Charisma, is chosen not because the player wants to play a socially somewhat awkward person and looks forward to the situations that may thus ensue, but because the munchkin believes it to be what is least necessary and will free up points to increase the character's potential in whatever it is the character does. And so on.

One could also say, I guess, even though that's oversimlifying matters, that the munchkin is the exception from the Stormwind Fallacy.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-20, 09:01 AM
Nerf Rooks!

Nah. It's really that rooks are underpowered. We just need to make every peice a queen.


Ok, seriously back to the OP's question: No, what you are doing is not munchking or even powergaming in any negative sense of the word. You asked your DM what he was ok with (which is more than many players do), explained it, and gave him options. You were not asking for anything broken or unreasonable. You are fine, don't worry about it. Munchkin, and sometimes powergamer is used as an insult. You didn't do anything worthy of a pejorative.

Justin_Bacon
2007-09-20, 02:54 PM
If fighter wins init, he holds his attack until target stands up. Target starts to stand. Fighter takes AoO. When the target stands, fighter's reserved action kicks in. Fighter trips again. Fighter takes free swing again.

You only roll initiative once, at the beginning of combat.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

AKA_Bait
2007-09-20, 03:39 PM
You only roll initiative once, at the beginning of combat.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

I presume Horseboy knew that and was postulating a surprise round in which the enemy charges. Otherwise, the fighter needn't do anything but ready a trip attack for when the enemy starts to get up.

Enemy starts to stand, AAO, Readied Trip and free attack.

Jayabalard
2007-09-20, 05:14 PM
Nah, that's still powergaming, or min-maxing. /shrug

I don't see a difference, so I don't differentiate.

besides, "uses whatever has the most plusses" goes back to some of the very first guides to real men, real roleplayers, loonies and munchkins.

Reinboom
2007-09-20, 05:36 PM
I don't even know what a Warblade is, or what reference it comes from.


Warblade is released material:
This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) is the Warblade.
And these (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) are the maneuvers.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-20, 07:04 PM
Along with above, warblade, or just the ToB (Tome of Battle) for that matter is generally viewed as a far better altenative for the standard fighter. Since the maneuvers are similar to spells, it allows the ToB classes to still be useful at high level, but still be a primary melee character.

Kompera
2007-09-21, 07:27 PM
Thanks again for all the replies. This is a very active board!

For those who suggested Warblade, thanks, but that's outside of the rules our group will be using. I did follow the links provided, and Warblade does seem to be a reasonable multi-class option for my character who began as a Barbarian (D12 HP, chaotic, etc), but Fighter is going to have to do as a multi-class. It got me the ability to read (which I had been role-playing towards well in advance of the 3rd level) and Feats are awesome.

I think Tormsskull and AKA_Bait understood me best. I was not comparing AD&D to D&D 3.5 as an apples to oranges sort of exercise (as some folks seemed to gather) but more as an alert to my DM, sort of a "Hey, in case you hadn't noticed, things have changed. A lot. Be ready for the heavy specialization 3.5 offers."

We gamed Thursday night, and I chose Power Attack and Cleave as two of my Feats, with the other two held in reserve until I see how combat works a bit more. I'm using a masterwork Light Flail and +1 Shield and a +1 Chain shirt. This seems to give me some decent options. I can Trip with a +2 using the Light Flail even without Imp. Trip, and sleep in the Chain shirt and still enjoy the movement bonus Barbarians enjoy when in light or medium armor (and a 40 move seems to be tactically awesome). I'm less concerned about "munchkin" builds for my own character, since all my gaming group has their own specialties and mine (at least with 2 Feats selected) don't seem to be dominating. My GM has told me that he has read the Trip rules and would not mind at all if I took Imp. Trip, since he sees it as a fair play maneuver and can "counter" it with strong/dexterous or large or multi-legged opponents. Our current foes appear to be goblins and monks, unknown yet if they are associated or not, but the monks may be difficult to Trip given their (supposedly) high DEX.

I'm not really sure where to go from here, all the excellent advice concerning TWF and THW has given me pause to reconsider TWF. A Heavy Flail seems like a great option, should I chose to lose the shield AC. Basically, the possibilities all seem to be excellent at this point, and I'm looking for options which will help me tank well for the group as well as have some fun by being effective in HTH combat. But I'm not sure I can really do wrong regardless of my next two Feat selections.