I always get a kick out of reading threads about stat block related questions or issues. Inverriably, the term "munchkin" gets tossed into the discussion at some point. Are there really any self-admitted munchkins out there? If so, i've never seen a poster claim to be one on these boards...but i've seen many been accused of and/or implicated as being a munchkin.
Where are the munchkins?
As ever,
ACE
~steps up to the podium and gently taps the mic~ Ah. Hello there. My name is Sharoth and I am a munchkin!
~chorus of voices from the audience~ Hello Sharoth!
~clears my throat~ I admit that I have a problem and hopefully the 12 step anti-munchkin program can help me!
Thank you for your support. ~steps down from the podium~
~clears my throat~ I admit that I have a problem and hopefully the 12 step anti-munchkin program can help me!
Rather than a 12-step program, I heard there was a 10-level prestige class that could help.
I may stagger taking levels of it with levels of fighter, for the extra fighter feats, and the better BAB progression.
During our last campaign (four years, just ended in March), we hit level 28-29 before hanging it up. That was munchkin. PCs were decked out with powerful magical items. The barbarian had a +6 adamantine lightning blast greataxe. The wizard had a staff of the magi that he hardly used. The cleric had two permanent emanations (repulsion and anti-life shell) and a base AC in the 50s. The arcane trickster could unleash 4 ranged touch spells in one round, making one an automatic impromptu sneak dealing d8 instead of d6 (sacred strike)...
Now that we've started over with Age of Worms, the group's party level is now 2. It's not munchkin. No magical weapons or armor, scant potions, some masterwork equipment, some special items (thunderstones, alchemist fire, sunrods, etc.)... Not munchkin. We are having a frickin' BLAST with it, btw.
I suppose there are times in every campaign when the group can take either path. It's up to the DM to maintain a logical balance of power at the table. Concerning our campaign, there's never been a time when we've thought that we've "gone munchkin." The opposition has always been relatively in tune with the damage output of the party.
If the players stop fearing for the lives of their PCs, the campaign is approaching munchkin land.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
~clears my throat~ I admit that I have a problem and hopefully the 12 step anti-munchkin program can help me!
Rather than a 12-step program, I heard there was a 10-level prestige class that could help.
I may stagger taking levels of it with levels of fighter, for the extra fighter feats, and the better BAB progression.
*snort!*
Now THAT is my kind of humor - subtle, yet effective...
M
~clears my throat~ I admit that I have a problem and hopefully the 12 step anti-munchkin program can help me!Rather than a 12-step program, I heard there was a 10-level prestige class that could help.
I may stagger taking levels of it with levels of fighter, for the extra fighter feats, and the better BAB progression.
But only 4 levels, because it's no good past that. Then you've got to move into Eldritch Knight, or perhaps Urban Soul...
Or maybe a warforged barbarian/juggernaut/frenzied berserker.
Cheers.
I used to think I was a munchkin, but then my players started showing me builds to take certain powerful prestige classes from level 2.
I don't think of myself or any of my players as munchkins. In our Age of Worms game, everyone has rolled stats very similar to (or even lower than, in one case) the 28 point-buy average. And no one has really complained. I've actually suggested to the Ranger in our group (main tank for a little while) that he may want to consider multi-classing as a Fighter for a few levels for added survivability in a toe-to-toe melee combat situation. But he hasn't done it. And very few of my players ever multi-class or work up to prestige classes.
I'm the dungeon master just about 100% of the time (it's been a few years since I've been a player character, unfortunately) but I find that the characters I want to play are cool in concept rather than unbeatable mechanics. I find playing a straight Ranger or Paladin or Rogue character like in Second Edition to be more exciting and fun than a Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Sorcerer 5/Rage Mage 10/Frenzied Berserker 10 dual wielding +5 vorpal spell storing bastard swords any day. Too much math.
But there isn't anything wrong, in my opinion, with wanting to play a character that excels in combat situations; and in something like Temple of Elemental Evil (especially the PC game version) where 90% or the time is spent in combat, this can be fun and viable. The major issue is context; what's fine in a hack-and-slash give no quarter take no prisoners game can quickly ruin a more well-balanced campaign by exploiting game mechanics.
If the players stop fearing for the lives of their PCs, the campaign is approaching munchkin land.Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Now this is an interesting concept. My experience is that my players start behaving more like Munchkins the more I kill them.
How's this for anti-Munchkin: one of my fellow players in our present campaign is taking ONLY levels as an Expert until he qualifies for, get this, Horizon Walker. If he survives that long....
How's this for anti-Munchkin: one of my fellow players in our present campaign is taking ONLY levels as an Expert until he qualifies for, get this, Horizon Walker. If he survives that long....
As I view it, the Expert class only needs some bonus feats say, every 3-4 levels, and it can hold its own compared to, say, the bard or rogue in a noncombat encounter.
I once played a Commoner from 1st to 7th level. I had a feat that effectively gave me a level in sorcerer without the familiar and with a bard's spells per day... It was sorta fun playing a pyro whose only magical access to fire was finger of flame...
FEAR ME FOR i'M THE ANTI MUNCHKIN.
*ahem*
I've got a reputation for playing the most unredeemable characters in the face of all logic to the contrary, much to the sometimes detrement of the party.
My current character isn't so bad however so, maybe I'm getting over it.
I've seen some characters equipped so well that they should have been munchkins, but inside their campaign, they've faced challenges commensurate with their inordinately powerful stuff. having said that, however......these same characters turn into munchkins occasionally when one of two things happen.
First, and the one i think we all find totally irritating, is when a player tries to impress us by telling us what the character has for items/stats...instead of what he's done. (Granted, if the DM gives them adventures that are inordinate, the stories of what the character's done may come across munchkin too.....godslayers, and the like).
Second, when a player insists on bringing his cherished character, loaded down with phenomenal equipment, tries to enter a new campaign with his equipment unaltered. In another campaign, with a different playing style, what had been a reasonably but well-equipped character suddenly becomes an imbalancing tank with more plusses in his arsenal than any given army, and the DM and all players end up frustrated.
Of course, that doesn't stop the other munchkins as well, who end up in campaigns where they all get massively powerful items and never face real challenges to their characters, who see the game as something to 'win' in that sense.
I have to admit, i do give a few (but not many)powerful items to my players, but i try to keep them levelled by the threats they face. In my current campaign, the party just hit third level, and we have two plus one weapons, two plus one items of armor, a nice grouping of potions and a wand of light. Their main munchkin item right now is a ring of regeneration, which is normally way out of a third level party's 'range' but it is very handy for the party. And i have to admit..it's interesting watching them argue over who gets to wear it just before what they expect to be big combats, since i play it by the book, the only person to benefit from it has to have it on before the wounds happen.....the magic user usually wins on simple math.
|
Frankly, I probably am a munchkin, but I get a little irritated with the anti-munchkin back-chat that goes on. Munchkin lib, I say. I can't help getting a kick out of using different feat, race and stat combos to squeeze as much as I can out of a character. I don't see it as a fault, it is a fun mind experiment that keeps me occupied (I don't actually "play" very often, I am almost always the DM).
And I don't see why it needs to be patronised as a pasttime. You want to play and expert or a commoner, or someone with stats of 3/3/3/3/3/3, then I respect your choice. But I want to kick butt/fry the bad guys/slice and dice or whatever, and always win when I do it (or as often as possible anyway). I am already a weedy geek - I don't want to play one. I don't think that is a sin, I think it is good tactics and creative use of the rules (let's leave aside issues of game balance and poor playtesting of new rule additions - let's assume for this discussion that the rules balance or at least can be made to with judicious tweaking).
So let's agree to ban offensive terms like munchkin - there are lots of us out there and it is insulting to our creed. Is there a more PC, less perjorative term for a munchin? "Creative rule-users"? I throw the floor open to suggestions.
During our last campaign (four years, just ended in March), we hit level 28-29 before hanging it up. That was munchkin. PCs were decked out with powerful magical items. The barbarian had a +6 adamantine lightning blast greataxe. The wizard had a staff of the magi that he hardly used. The cleric had two permanent emanations (repulsion and anti-life shell) and a base AC in the 50s. The arcane trickster could unleash 4 ranged touch spells in one round, making one an automatic impromptu sneak dealing d8 instead of d6 (sacred strike)...
If the players stop fearing for the lives of their PCs, the campaign is approaching munchkin land.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
What you are describing doesn't quite sound like a munchkin. The question is at that high of a level is their still roleplaying, or were your characters just a bunch of numbers? I believe that is the true difference between a munchkin and a powergamer. The trick of playing at higher levels is having a DM that can still challenge your characters both mentally and physically. I run games all the time with characters in the 50th level rangeand I still have things out there in my world, that a full group of them won't attack head on for fear of getting their heads handed to them.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now this is an interesting concept. My experience is that my players start behaving more like Munchkins the more I kill them.
If the players stop fearing for the lives of their PCs, the campaign is approaching munchkin land.Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I agree. My AoW campaign started with a player who was going to go rogue/cleric and into a divine trickster type prestige class. The party kept getting beat down and his character was not very effective. As a result, he retired the character and brought in a straight cleric, with high strength and a propensity to turn undead. Now he's part of the front line and is deadly.
Myself, I'm a total munchkin when I play. It's actually one of the reasons that I DM 90% of the time. When I create a character, it is invariably one of those cleric/cheesemaster/munhkanoid that everyone complains about. My biggest deviation from munchkinism is the fact that I make goblins or kobolds whenever a DM will let me.
making the most of your skills and items is not munchkin, i don't think. and having items that are appropriate to the threats you face are not. but someone with, for example +4 sword (or swords!), +3 armor who hasn't faced anything tougher than a cr 8 encounter with lizardfolk has received more than he should have at this point in his career.
Bottom line, as i see it, a munchkin is a player in a campaign that fits the old Monty Haul motif....and who is never challenged accordingly.
A player of any level who has +3 sword and +4 armor who has fought multiple tanarri and faced off with some adult or older dragons has well earned the items, regardless of his level.
(And maximizing resources....i have a fighter in my campaign who has utilized the trip opponent skill to an artform and it's more than a little frustrating how well he manages to use it....but that's a player using what he has well, and as a DM it's my job not to 'beat it'....but to work with it and keep the game exciting...including rewarding him for finding something he can use effectively against many of his opponents) 'hushes my rambling'
i am a munchkin,i crunch numbers and find every loophole in the rules to maxamize my characters that i can. even when the dm puts roadblocks in my way like making my character take 10 levels of druid i make them regret every level. i am munchkin hear me roar!
First, and the one i think we all find totally irritating, is when a player tries to impress us by telling us what the character has for items/stats...instead of what he's done.
Hah, indeed. It's really not impressive to hear, "We're only level 11 and we got five million gold pieces from our last adventure!" I'd be much more impressed to hear of a party beating a certain encounter or dungeon by tactics or strategy.
Hah, indeed. It's really not impressive to hear, "We're only level 11 and we got five million gold pieces from our last adventure!" I'd be much more impressed to hear of a party beating a certain encounter or dungeon by tactics or strategy.
Hmm, I guess I am definitely not a munchkin since many of my favorite stories include glorious (and when not glorious, funny) failures.
Or when my character talked (and I mean talked, not just made a diplomacy roll) with four or five NPCs and through that managed to find out what was the plan of our enemies and what would they do next so we could set up an ambush...
I don't think I am. But I have lots of fun with the game so I don't care if I am or not.
...I want to kick butt/fry the bad guys/slice and dice or whatever, and always win when I do it (or as often as possible anyway).
"That...is why you fail."
By thinking about the game in terms of 'kicking butt'/'frying bad guy'/'slicing & dicing' and always winning, you've entirely left the spirit of the game behind, obliterated the believability of the game-world and turned the adventure into a table-top video game.
A mean-spirited person would suggest that you quit trying to play and go back to your X-Box/PS3/Gamecube, where the results are more immediate. I still have hope for you...
...I am already a weedy geek - I don't want to play one. I don't think that is a sin, I think it is good tactics and creative use of the rules (let's leave aside issues of game balance and poor playtesting of new rule additions - let's assume for this discussion that the rules balance or at least can be made to with judicious tweaking).
"Creative use of the rules"!?
The rules are not there for you to "get creative with" - they exist to allow the DM to TRY and describe, portray and operate, to some level of realism, a fictional world and its inhabitants. Any use of the rules outside this goal is abusive.
When generating a character, most DMs and players would come up with a nice backstory that justifies the character's existence and explains his training and tendencies; the less believable and more outrageous the story (or if you can't even make a story fit the character at all), the more likely that the character is abusive to the rules.
Of course, if birds of a feather flock together and everyone enjoys their particular style of game, then more power to them. There's no harm, no foul as long as the styles don't mix - which will mostly apply just to DMs dealing with certain players.
M
"That...is why you fail."
...
A mean-spirited person would suggest that you quit trying to play and go back to your X-Box/PS3/Gamecube, where the results are more immediate. I still have hope for you...
I think it would've been heaps more friendly to have left comments like these completely unsaid.
I think it would've been heaps more friendly to have left comments like these completely unsaid.
Perhaps, but I'm in a testy mood today and considerably less tolerant than usual...
My apologies to any readers in the hard-core video crowd who may have taken umbrage...
Please note that I own an X-Box and my kids also own a Gamecube; I also have 4 PCs in the house for various PC and WWW gaming. However, we all keep the distinct playing styles for each separate and appropriate, which was my point.
If you don't immerse yourself into the game as a player and experience it as designed and intended, but rather plug in your cheat code and run through the game with no challenge at all just to enjoy the scenery, you've not only defeated the spirit of the game, but you've cheated yourself out of the experience and satisfaction of earning it through diligence, practice and skill.
There is no cheat code for life,
M
Tactless but true. I think at some point we have all felt like Marc. And lord knows I've been in games wher both styles were at odds at the table.
My original point, exactly;
If both styles exist at the same table, the player is going to have to defer to the DMs preferred style or there's going to be problems for all.
...I wasn't even trying for tactful.
M
|
I game to kill things!
Gaming is my release at the end of the week. In a world where there is so much out of our control, gaming gives me a little of that control back.
Dude, that's me 110%. I roleplay and talk to people all week, they call that 'work.' Or 'being a good father/husband/etc.'
Bashing orcs and kicking doors in is therapy. I think it might even help stave of road rage.
A cheat code for D&D would let you do things like: Roll Natural 20s on every single roll; have unlimited HP; never take a point of damage, ever; use spells and powers without ever expending points or spell slots.
I don't consider it a 'cheat code' when someone picks classes, feats, and skills to maximize their effectiveness within some sort of party niche. They're working within the rules to create whatever monstrosity they're creating.
The intent and spirit of the game is to have fun. Marc seems to have a drastically different opinion than I do of what that means. Me, I feel that this is a game of magic and blood, legend and adventure, tall tales, myth, and sometimes even truth. Every bit as much as I want to get into a game and be challenged and live a suspense filled gritty existence as some poor schmoe just trying to survive an unpleasant encounter with an orc, I want to play my version of Paul Bunyan and Babe who made the 10,000 lakes by sheer virtue of their size while playing. Or Pecos Bill, who wrangled a twister (tornado) and used it for a giant sized vacuum.
Compared to these fantastic tales, making a frenzied berserker who's immune to dying for a short time while they slaughter hordes of enemies, mages who can turn into anything from a mouse to a dragon, or clerics who conjure up a body to bring the dead back to life, or half-dragon half-fiend half-minotaur elves, may seem like small potatoes. But hey, wouldn't it be nice to pretend once in a while?
Obviously, any given person's wants need to blend somehow with the rest of those at the table, or not everyone is going to have as much fun as they could (or worse, none at all). Tone has to be established, and not by any one player, or even by the DM alone. The DM has to at least consider what the majority of his players want to see, or get them to place enough trust in him to run something they may not be all that sure about. The players, too, have to consider each other and the DM when weighing their options. Noone should have their fun at someone else's expense.
So while I don't mind playing a more reserved, moderate game, I'm all for making powerful characters and utilize combos of classes, feats, and skills to make sure I minimize my risk while maximizing my success.
But am I a munchkin? Nope.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oy. Nothing quite like the munchkin v. True Roleplayer debate to make a thread go up in flames. I thought this thread was for us to confess our inner munchkin sins, not to rag on people for making that confession. Go start a new thread to bash munchkins or go ressurect one of the countless dormant threads on the topic.
Sebastian
Mechanics loving power-gaming munchkin and proud of it!
Oy. Nothing quite like the munchkin v. True Roleplayer debate to make a thread go up in flames. I thought this thread was for us to confess our inner munchkin sins, not to rag on people for making that confession. Go start a new thread to bash munchkins or go ressurect one of the countless dormant threads on the topic.
Sebastian
Mechanics loving power-gaming munchkin and proud of it!
Pretty much true...I've just never seen anyone profess to be a munchkin. I figured this could be an appropriate "coming out" thread for those munchkins to be heard!
As ever,
ACE
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Pretty much true...I've just never seen anyone profess to be a munchkin. I figured this could be an appropriate "coming out" thread for those munchkins to be heard!
As ever,
ACE
True, but you also know how nebulous the definition of munchkin is. It seems like we had some level of group consensus on the term with respect to power gaming on one of the other threads about this topic. When I say I am a munchkin, I'm referring to the defintion therein. I like the number crunching and war-gaming aspects of D&D. I'm not going to apologize for that and I'm not going to pretend like I'm playing the game the wrong way because of that preference.
|
|
I get slightly upset when someone says "D&D was made for character interaction and roleplaying". D&D was originally a system adapted from tabletop wargames. Look at most old adventures(late 70's through 80's), 98% of the NPC's were designed to be killed by the party. It developed into more of a roleplaying game over time but the original intent was to highlight the "Hero units" of large armies and their individual exploits, not to talk to every creature with a vocal chord.
That being said, I love the roleplaying and the combat optimisation parts of D&D. I don't plot a character build up to 20th level with full feat selections, but I do have a general idea of the path I want a character to take and what feats will help keep them alive for a while (hopefully).
I consider myself neither a munchkin nor a purist. I am a gamer. I game. Sometimes my character will be able to talk the leaves off a tree, other characters will be able to hack a dragon in half longways. Neither character is bad or wrong. They just belong to a gamer.
FH
Wait till it spreads to D&D online thats going to be fun
Wow, I hope I didn't get rolled into the munchkin bashing comment.
I think that was meant for me, which means that I was misunderstood.
I love a good munchkin, especially from a DM perspective. The munchkin in the party is reliable, and not to be derogatory, predictable. You can count on the munchkin to get his party into all kinds of trouble. Why, you ask. The classic munchkin is a one trick pony, metaphorically speaking. he does one or two things to the exclusion of all else, and as such, will go out of his way to put himself into those situations where he shines the brightest. A GM's wet dream.
You can use the same bait with minor variations to pull them into the same situations. And if their munchkin is unbalancing the game, you find the solution and stick with it. People inherintly play the same character time and again. If you found a way to balance the munchkin in one campaign, it'll work in the next as well.
This is why a table of mixed styles of players is problematic: the munchkin will pull the party away from a common strategy in pursuit of their particular brand of specialized glory. But, I consider that the PC group's problem, not the DMs.
I actually have a munchkin in my group, but he is willing to dial-back the stat-crunching in my game to blend with the rest of the group; he is a valuble rules reference source and he has always been very fair with reminding all of us of certain modifiers and conditions that might be in place, regardless of whether or not they benefit the group or the DM.
As mentioned in my previous post, there is a great deal of difference between player running a multi-classed character with specialized feats and a munchkin; the telling difference between the two is in the answer they give when you ask them, "Why are you running this character?"
How they reply will tell you whether or not they're a munchkin.
Yes...to me, 'munchkin' is a derogatory term; what everyone here doesn't know is that I don't apply it to as many people as you think.
M
1st edition Barbarian named Grogg.
Str 19
Dex 16
Con 19
Int 5
Wis 6
Cha 14
Dumber than a sack of rocks. Those are my 1-9th level stats I eventually found a way to increase his int and wis to a workable level (he had a more that ten word vocab.) He bare knuckled dragons, once attacked a pair of golds because he thought it was unfair for them to gang up on that poor green dragon.
Challaged the an evil dragon goddess because she made him mad...seriously she insulted his fighting prowess, so I jumped her in her own plane. Grogg was snatched from under her claw by a demi god that hated the godess in guestion. Agued with my rescuer for a hour that "I had her right where I wanted her"
I loved that character I wouldn't play him ever a again but that barbar ruled. I still get a little excited when I think about the pure mayhem that Munchkin beast could wreak.
Mmmmmm...killin'...Mmmmm...
I'm not a munchkin, but hell if I'm not a serious power-gamer. I will build my character to be the best at what he does with every rule, supplement, and piece of gear I can find. Of course, he'll have his backstory and motivation and will interact with NPCs as appropriate. But it all might have really stemmed from a Munchkin ideal of the dwarf who fights with two dwarven waraxes, etc. But in the end, i'm merely a power-gamer.
To me, just the idea of power gaming or munchkinizing only makes sense if there are some kind of restraints that prevent a DM from adjusting encounters to tailor the campaign, the party, and the indvidual PC (in that order). The only things that I can think of are:
1) You are playing a video game that sets the same encounters regardless of the character stat blocks or
2) the DM is not doing his/her job in adjusting the encounters accordingly.
Even canned adventures can be adjusted to challenge a party to their powers.
Consider this (and I've suggested this before on other threads): It shouldn't matter how powered up a PC is because the DM should set encounters to challenge both the 0th level commoner and 50th level munchkened out character. This kind of tailored approach discourages both power gaming and munchkinizing because the stat block bonuses are not realized comparitively. It doesn't take away the Player's ability to do as he/she pleases with their character, it just normalizes the mechanics of the game for all PCs. Make sense?
As ever,
ACE
Hey all, I am a munchking atleast to what you guys think one is. I am Marc's munchkin I play in his game. I make characters based on how I see them in my head, they will be the stand alone hero, the savior of the party, the ultimate team player, the defender of the week, many different forms somtimes one character will take on multiple roles. I love this game, I have been playing for 16 years. I think 3.0 was very broken, and 3.5 still leaves lots of room for making powerfull characters. Don't get me wrong here though, I don't like the idea that your character will automatically succede on somthing because he is a god at that skill, I appriciate role playing it out, now our group is 10 people so not all situations allow for deep role play, when it comes to actual fighting I like to pick a focus in a way, either best offense is strong defense or better to kill them before they get a chance to kill you. I don't look at this as cheating most of the time it comes down to time spent making and developing the character. I just made a new character for last nights session which I spent well over 10 hours on. Now he is pretty nasty, he is a strait up cleric, which is relying heavily on buffs, now a few well placed dispell magics will knock him right down to normal or actually bellow since a lot of his spells will be soaked up, he couldn't afford to get a ring or 2 of counterspell for dispell magic as we don't start off with alot of gold, now I complain about this some but I really like it Marc :) it makes it more of a challange to make a good character when you can't rely on equipment. again, I am happy if we would play for 6 hours and never touch dice, but I mean play not game diruption which happens a decent amount at our game. this I believe makes me a power gamer, its not about how bad a** my character is I could care less, although I do boast sometimes I am guilty of pride sorry. I just like knowing if the situation comes up I can deal with it. sorry for long post. again I love this game, and I like playing with Marc he runs a chalanging game.
Do you know the easiest way to destroy a Munchkin? In the game, make them face a Munchkin Metagaming villan that is twice the munchkin that they are. It takes some preperation, but watching their heads explode is well worth the effort.
Do you know the easiest way to destroy a Munchkin? In the game, make them face a Munchkin Metagaming villan that is twice the munchkin that they are. It takes some preperation, but watching their heads explode is well worth the effort.
So basically the best way to deal with a player that "abuses the rules" to create a munchkined out character is to allow your game to devolve into a game of rules lawyering one-upmanship, reestablishing the DM as the guy with the biggest dice?