"Muchkin"

[Kompera]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

[horseboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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! Munchkin'ing isn't powergaming, it's powergaming taken to the extreme.