There should have been more epic spell like Rick "Duicarthan" Miller's Invoked Devastation over on Canonfire. It required (12) 20+ level spell caster each using an epic spell slot and an artifact.
Thanks for the vote of confidence there, Baramay. I put a LOT of thought into that spell. While at the same time trying to stick to canon and to the new 3.5 rules. Its been my opinion that anything can be done if you have the right scope of mind.
For instance, its been proven that spellcasters can often do more in larger groups. So in the case of the Suel Invoked Devastation I really set the specs high to reduce the Spells enormous DC. Overall, it worked wondrously.The real catcher to making a high level or epic spell is really looking into whats its being made for, who is casting it, and how big of an area its affecting. The Epic Level Handbook and the Dungeon Masters' Guide are both really good at setting up how to make an epic spell.
As for muchkins every game has one. Its just a measure of knowing how to balance out their needs for power with your game. B/c really if you think about it, there's always someone out there thinking the same thing or someone who wants that same power. No matter if its mundane or extra-ordinarily immense in proportions.
As a DM I balance these out. Say for example one PC had a 48 AC at 17th level, thought they were all that. I showed them they were not b/c they were charmed the next round by the evil spellcaster. So now their allies couldn't hit them either to even knock them out. It took the spellcaster burning his dispel magic to fix the problem, while at the same time knocking out all the parties bonuses and taking the spellcaster off the offensive. =)
A bit off topic- readers accept my apology
You're quite welcome Duicarthan. I enjoy much of what you have written on Canonfire, especially involving the Suel Imperium. I am currently having a problem registering on that site. I have registered but not received an e-mail to allow me access to the site. Any help you can give me would be great. My e-mail is mjlivingood70(AT)aol(DOT)com.
Thanks
-Mike
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I would posit that 2nd edition had a lot of powergaming friendly settings and options. You are correct about the 2nd edition "The FR has everything in D&D in it" mentality pushing things toward the epic, but it doesn't bother me becuase to me it just means that there are challenges across the level ranges.
[….]
I think that the 3rd edition structure helps to give rise to munchkinism on a larger scale. That does not mean that its bad, but that DMs have to use some logic when dealing with their players. When Vlad the Clueless manages to find some magic item that raises his intelligence to 12 and then wants to take a level of wizard so he can then take the Exploding Sword Adept PrC, the DM has to step in and say, logically, whatever the rules say, just because your int is now 12 doesn't mean you have EVER had any kind of magical training.
I guess to echo earlier thoughts on the thread, no munchkin ever got played that wasn't at least tacitly approved by a DM.
Munchkins exist playing in every game and game system but only thrive where GMs allow them to (as has been pointed out already on this thread). They combine the worst elements of power gamers and min/maxers then spice up the whole pot with monty haul creativity that eschews game balance in favor of general wonkieness. To compound this players from the lolly-pop-guild mentality seem to think they should always be the best or most important PC in the game and will cheat to insure that they are.
I disagree that 3rd edition promotes munchkin behavior more than previous editions. Munchkins exploit every loophole to power. In my opinion 2nd edition’s Kits were the one of the best examples of a game system enabling munchkinism. WotC staff in the 30years of D&D hardcover even admitted that the kits (and the brown books as a whole) suffered from power creep. Each kit and each book becoming more powerful than the last until play balance was pretty much shot. I occasionally come across a 3.5 prestige class or rule that seems a little skewed, but nothing on the scale of some of the old kits. Another example of enabling the munchkins came from the old Basic D&D game. The original red box setwas good and the Expert and Companion boxed sets were fine but after that the Master and Immortals sets were pretty much munchkin fare, the rules just became too top heavy and lost balance.
Most of the munchkins I have come across over the years however didn’t need help from the rules set, they and their DM’s just made up some wonky stuff and ran with it. One of the best personal examples I can remember was a magic coat one player had for his character. Pockets of holding, mithril lining padded with feathers of feather falling somehow there were a half dozen rings in another set of pockets, displacement fabric, and more that I can’t even remember. The player was shocked when I said the whole thing had to go. He claimed he’d made it in game from legitimately acquired treasure in a game his cousin ran (over a weekend). This same player had a habit of being caught fudging dice rolls (i.e. 4—18s at character gen. while rolling what turned out to be 2 die sixes and 2 die threes). We only played with this guy because our player base was so small we thought (for a time at least) that our game would suffer for his loss. Time proved us wrong and we are glad we came to our senses, but other groups may not have had such an epiphany yet. But I digress….
My point is we shouldn’t point our finger at the new system and say it’s more to blame for enabling munchkins than previous editions each edition has had it’s flaws in that respect. Munchkins prevail where ever they can get a foot hold: whether it be in a game where everyone enjoys the play style (fine), or where they can exploit the generosity of am overly kind DM (bad), or where they bully their way through by being one of the few gamers in an area (bad).
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
The negative concept of a munchkin, I believe, is an unrealistic expectation imposed by who knows when and who knows where. I think it exists to create a false divide between people who consider themselves to be "better" roleplayers than others (and a superiority complex in D&D is a pretty weak thing to have).
No way to play the game is any more right or wrong as long as everyone is having fun. Munchkins as I see them have no respect for the wishes of the DM let alone the other players when they try their trademark stunts at the table and ruin the fun for the other players.
I posit that munchkins are, in fact, often better, more realistic roleplayers than those who deride them. Consider this: if you really were your character, and you made your living performing regularly life-threatening tasks, would you not want to have the best possible equipment for the job? If it meant the difference between living and dying, would you not opt for the least fair method of doing battle?
I think our opinions of what a munchkin is differs. Not everyone can have the physique of Arnold Schwartzenager, the agility of Mary Lou Retton, the stamina of Lance Armstrong, the intellect of Einstein, the wisdom of the Dalai Lama, and the charisma of Oprah. If you do you're either a munchkin or playing in an epic style game(not neccessarily epic level). I like characters with depth who aren’t maxed out to the nines. I do believe however that a character should make the most of his or her strengths. (I'm a story oriented min/maxer)
Imagine a soldier given a choice between a .38 revolver and an AK-47. The soldier will choose the rifle in probably all cases. Then, imagine that the choice is between the AK-47 and the same weapon, but one that would magically never jam or run out of ammunition. Clearly, any military in the world would leap at the chance to have such a radically superior firearm, and soldiers would do everything they could to acquire one.
A character should get everything within his or her means to do the job. Note: Within his or her means. The Munchkin soldier would also have a bazooka, a carbine laser (his cousin gave it to him when that campaigns version of Doc Brown invented it), thermo-nuclear grenades (“They really have those really!! I read about them someplace”) and countless other goodies none of it would hamper his encumbrance because he would have “ACCIDENTALLY” miscalculated the weight.
Munchkins, players who try to min/max every last detail, are behaving more like their characters would in a real life situation. Even players who focus on non-combat aspects will max out their diplomacy and related skills for the same reason-- in real life, intelligent people do everything they can to be as effective as possible at whatever their task is.
I think you're talking about min/maxing which can be troubling if it goes too far, but far from what I think of when I think of the lolly-pop-guild.
I've never played with a munchkin that was more than the DM allowed them to be.
ASEO out
"vote for ASEO"
I've never played with a munchkin that was more than the DM allowed them to be.
ASEO out
Mmm...OK I agree with you but...
I don't think Munchkins normally bother the DM at all. I mean if they bothered the DM then presumably he would not allow them in his game. If they don't or they are in some other DMs game well why the heck should he care.
So its not the munchkin existing thats the problem so much as the potential munchkin. This is the 'Power Gamer' thats busy going over everything you allow into your campaign and building the most awesome killing machine he can get away with. Even this individual is not such a hassle except that he's probably a pretty smart guy and you may have failed to meditate for 20 minutes over every word you allowed into your campaign. How can you be absolutely certin you did not let some slip through? Something that will allow munchkin like abilities to be acquired by our 'Power Gamer'? Of course you can crush his hopes and dreams ruthlessly through a verity of methods from killing his character underhandedly to simply noting that this was never your intention and nerfing the character. While many gamers might not have trouble with you nerfing something unbalancing 'Power Gamers' often spent hours finding this unique combo and and then spent many levels acquiring this carefully constructed combo made of the perfect choices of feats, equipment and optimum magic selection. My experience is they resist you nerfing all their hard work quite dramatically. Your the DM of course and you can show him the door but usually the guy might have something of a point with the idea that he deserves to be paid off if he really did spend 18 months building his character into some kind of biological cuisinart.
Sure there is an issue with the fact that maybe this individual is not playing the same style of game as you (note that if you laugh evily when placing monsters and traps there is probably some significant overlap) want your players to aspire to but then so long as he was enjoying himself and the other players where enjoying themselves there was no problem - but know of course there is because you failed to forsee the ramifications of everything you let slip into the game. Sure this guy may never beat up Thor - you'd not let that happen but he has unbalanced everything and now you as the DM have to deal with it.
He's broken no rules (though he may be bending the spirit of some of them) and has played fair for a very significant period of time to get his character were it stands today. From my perspective this is the most problematic Munchkin of all.
He's broken no rules (though he may be bending the spirit of some of them) and has played fair for a very significant period of time to get his character were it stands today. From my perspective this is the most problematic Munchkin of all.
Very well articulated, Jeremy Mac Donald, and if my brain has correctly translated your meaning you are saying the heart of the problem lies within the structural aspects of the game system itself. That is, the structure of the rules themselve logically entail the possibility of munchkins.
Is it possible to create a game system where being a munchkin is simply impossible, because the rules will work together to prevent this?
I don’t know, man, can we create a perfect democracy?
This reminds me of an area of Game Theory called "Mechanism Design", the science of creating a system of rules so the system is bound to operate within known/correct/wanted constraints. That is a tough nut to crack.
All I can say is I feel for you. I hope you someday find, or build, this perfect rule system. Don't forget Godel's Proof, though!!
!!!
Question: Do you consider, Bill Gates, a munchkin? A capitalist munchkin that is???
stay cool.
He's broken no rules (though he may be bending the spirit of some of them) and has played fair for a very significant period of time to get his character were it stands today. From my perspective this is the most problematic Munchkin of all.
Oh, but they long to (at least in my experience).
For what it's worth, I remember another munchkin from my gaming past -- this guy said, with complete seriousness, that his perfect character (D&D 2/e) was Str 25, Dex 25, Con 25, Int 9, Wis 9, Cha 9. What do you say to such a statement?
Maybe this is what I define as a munchkin: a character that is so utterly lacking in character development beyond min/maxed numbers.
Later all,
Jack
Very well articulated, Jeremy Mac Donald, and if my brain has correctly translated your meaning you are saying the heart of the problem lies within the structural aspects of the game system itself. That is, the structure of the rules themselve logically entail the possibility of munchkins.Is it possible to create a game system where being a munchkin is simply impossible, because the rules will work together to prevent this?
I don’t know, man, can we create a perfect democracy?
This reminds me of an area of Game Theory called "Mechanism Design", the science of creating a system of rules so the system is bound to operate within known/correct/wanted constraints. That is a tough nut to crack.
All I can say is I feel for you. I hope you someday find, or build, this perfect rule system. Don't forget Godel's Proof, though!!
Actually not a problem I am currently facing though I have had to deal with it in the past. I'm mainly just arguing with ASEO's contention that the DM is the sole source of Munchkinism - especially in 3.5 where its possible for players to create Munchkin like characters even while playing completely in bounds.
That said I do have a certian amount of Munchkinsim in my campaign and to a certian extent I encourage it as I feel it shows interest in the game and rules. As long as it does not get out of hand its all good.
Especially as it was only with a supreme effort of will, while working on my most recent adventure, that I did not give the Death Knight riding a Red Dragon the Mounted Combat feat and pump half his skill points into the ride ability - This would have allowed me to force players that had managed to hit the Red Dragon to roll again to hit if the Death Knight made his ride check as he can use Mounted Combat to allow his mount to dodge blows that connect. So I'm being a bit of a Munchkin as the DM and if the DM is doing a certian amount of Munchkining the players had best be doing a certian amount of it to.
Actually not a problem I am currently facing though I have had to deal with it in the past. I'm mainly just arguing with ASEO's contention that the DM is the sole source of Munchkinism - especially in 3.5 where its possible for players to create Munchkin like characters even while playing completely in bounds.
I also need to add that even though I understand your point, I like power gamers. I really only want to DM power gamers, or I get bored and prefer going to the bar and dancing.