|
Hrrmmm.
I thought I saw Hero System and GURPS on the shelf next to that "Gee I can't play what I want from first level" game (D&D) last time I was at the FLGS. Different systems do different things. Maybe one of the others is better suited to the "a la carte" crowd. Kirth did a very nice job with a "classless" Pathfinder. Download it, it might fit the bill.
And, to all the "DM is a dick" people: Pg. 176, 3.5 DMG "Prestige classes are purely optional, and always* under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign.* The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."
Of course, players never seem to care that a DM spends FAR more time preparing for a game than they do, and maybe has an idea what flavor, theme and tone his campaign will have. If a DM wants to limit his campaign to core, core + one splat, or anything goes, that's his choice, as he's the one putting in the work. If you want to play a certain character, ASK, don't ASSUME. Live with it if he has a reason for not allowing it.
Personally, the amount of money a player has spent on splat books has no bearing on what I allow in my campaign. I don't care what you spent on the ToB books, I don't like them. Of course, I don't play with people who have a radically different play style than I do, so it's a moot point for me.
My suggestion? You don't like the DM limiting what he allows in his campaign, find another one, or DM yourself.
*Emphasis mine.
Well, houstonderek, I definitely agree that the DM has the right to limit any options to those appropriate to the campaign world he is using. In fact, in my world that I am using to run games at the moment, I even limit core options. I am a firm believer that restrictions define a campaign world as much as options. Sure, some 'umbrella' campaign settings are fine, such as Forgotten Realms (and probably Golarion - I cannot tell, since I have never played a Golarion game as of yet), but oftentimes I enjoy running and playing in settings that are more defined.
|
|
Yeah, the above post wasn't trying to tell anyone the "One True Way" or anything, and I allow quite a bit in my homebrew that fits thematically, from a variety of sources.
I've just seen a lot of "well, the rules this" and "the rules that", and I wanted to point out PrCs aren't a player's prerogative, but the DMs, RAW.
Everyone also discusses limiting people's "fun". Well, if only one person in a group feels their "fun" is being ruined by a DM who doesn't allow every book on the player's shelf, perhaps it is that person who needs to grow and accept that his desires may be what limits the other four or five people's fun.
The issue is not black and white, cut and dried, and "one size fits all". Every table is different, so find out how a group plays before you try to join them. Whining because a group doesn't allow Bo9S or whatever just shows bad form. And if you're a "build a story, I just want to roleplay" type, don't join a game full of combat lovin' power gamers.
And, DMs, if you post on a message board or the FLGS cork board for players, and you get four respondents who are all min/max power gamer types (and that's it), because you weren't explicit in describing that your game is close to core and roleplay heavy with little combat (or vice versa on both sides), either adapt to them, or sit on the bench.
|
|
My favorite rule, is that the DM runs the game...
I've just seen a lot of "well, the rules this" and "the rules that", and I wanted to point out PrCs aren't a player's prerogative, but the DMs, RAW.
Mine, too, but it doesn't seem to be the default assumption any more. Back in the day, you'd have players arguing whether or not they could do something, forgetting that the DM is final arbiter. Nowadays, they have ammo in the form of "rules to adjudicate everything", and the DM's arbiter role has been weakened by the rules heavy nature of the 3x game.
I think today's players typically take too much for granted. Personally, I blame MtV, WoD and Emo music, but then, my gf just found a gray hair on my head.
Eh, new times, new players, new assumptions. All you can do is turn on the fire hose and keep them off your lawn...
Didn't have players arguing? Wow, quite the statement there and one I can't believe. I've never seen player who don't argue at least some.
Beyond that back 'in the day' more was allowed by rules for the 'straight' classes, and many of these options were not available (or where available through kits, or traits and the like). We aren't covering new and ground breaking terrain here, almost everything here has been done before, just in a slightly different way.
The DMG also mentions that the DM can alter the core classes to fit a player's intended concept, or even alter multiclassing for his campaign setting (the specific example being everyone having a level of cleric in a divine based game).
That's also expected of the DM... to be the arbiter of the rules so everyone can have a good time.
If I ever DM again, I think I'll make a game that starts at level 5, and requires that everyone have at least 3 base classes. Ha!
...
Anyways.. I'm just curious as to what people here would think of this character:
Fighter 4, Barbarian 3, Ranger 3, Rogue 3, Commander 4, Psychic Warrior 3
Yep, six (6!) base classes. Is this a munchkin build? Do you think this was created organically, or with a powergaming 20 level plan?
What if I said he's using a Spiked Chain and 3.5e Improved Trip too? Oh, and the Expansion psionic power, in an item crafted by overchanneling no less, to be Huge?
Okay... now that you have your opinions.. read this:
He started off with Barbarian levels, and quickly moved into Ranger to become a guerrilla style warrior. Quick movement, nature knowledge, and favored enemy in his most common foe was all key.
He's always had a mind for tactics (hence his path of hit and run tactics against superior numbers), however his actual combat training was still rough (Rage).
One of his childhood friends (another PC character) grew up as street sneak, and a bit of that rubbed off on him. Sense motive was important just to protect himself from his own friend half the time, but soon became useful in other aspects of his career. The sneaky attacks he learned from his friend also helped in his guerrilla combat.
Later, he realized that when by himself in combat, it was a superior tactic to have reach. Nothing works better in that respect compared to a Spiked Chain, which also complimented his attack style (Strength).
Fighter levels are taken to not only learn how to use the Spiked Chain, but also start to excel (Weapon Focus/Specialization).
Later, this helped immensely in his role as the group's protector.
During his adventuring, he continues to improve his social skills (diplomacy, bluff, sense motive), despite having a rough demeanor (Cha 9). Being the only one in the group that knows anything about surviving and getting around in nature, he keeps those skills developed (survival, knowledge). This takes more skill training than Fighter levels can accomodate.
At one point, he takes part in an outright battle, right at the front lines. He witnesses the key aspects to teamwork and tactics. Also, his efforts award him some small nobility. He decides to focus on becoming something of a Tactical Commander for the group (Commander levels), using his social skill training previously used only during non-combat (taken to be useful in roleplaying), for in-combat bonuses.
Perform Oratory becomes a quick focus, as he pulls a Sgt Emery and browbeats his fellows into doing better (still Cha 9, ha!).
Finally, in a more recent adventure, he becomes immersed in the strange realm of psionics, where temporary powers were granted. He quickly discovers he has an aptitude for this kind of thing (ability scores are capable), and understands the tactical advantages to having combat powers like this against the foes he's facing (15th lvl+).
Also, having spent over half a year watching his fellow caster adventurers crafting items of power, he decides the best use of his newfound abilities is to put them into items that he can have permanently, and thus allow him to still perform his combat routine, only now enhanced (gaining full attack on a charge, and becoming Huge).
Now he's ready to face the demi-Gods the next adventures will call for.
|
The DMG also mentions that the DM can alter the core classes to fit a player's intended concept, or even alter multiclassing for his campaign setting (the specific example being everyone having a level of cleric in a divine based game).
That's also expected of the DM... to be the arbiter of the rules so everyone can have a good time.If I ever DM again, I think I'll make a game that starts at level 5, and requires that everyone have at least 3 base classes. Ha!
...
Anyways.. I'm just curious as to what people here would think of this character:
Fighter 4, Barbarian 3, Ranger 3, Rogue 3, Commander 4, Psychic Warrior 3
Yep, six (6!) base classes. Is this a munchkin build? Do you think this was created organically, or with a powergaming 20 level plan?
What if I said he's using a Spiked Chain and 3.5e Improved Trip too? Oh, and the Expansion psionic power, in an item crafted by overchanneling no less, to be Huge?
Okay... now that you have your opinions.. read this:
[spoiler]This character was born in a city that was a strategic war point, and constantly under siege by one force or another, neither of which had the best intentions of the city in mind.
He started off with Barbarian levels, and quickly moved into Ranger to become a guerrilla style warrior. Quick movement, nature knowledge, and favored enemy in his most common foe was all key.
He's always had a mind for tactics (hence his path of hit and run tactics against superior numbers), however his actual combat training was still rough (Rage).One of his childhood friends (another PC character) grew up as street sneak, and a bit of that rubbed off on him. Sense motive was important just to protect himself from his own friend half the time, but soon became useful in other aspects of his career. The sneaky attacks he learned from his friend also helped in his guerrilla combat.
Later, he realized that when by himself in combat, it was a superior tactic to have reach. Nothing works better in that respect compared to a...
Just because a person can make up a backstory that works, or roleplay into the different classes that make up a munchkin build, doesn't make a build any less munchkiny. That build is munchkiny. It was developed well in-game, but good roleplay doesn't negate munchkinism.
Just because a person can make up a backstory that works, or roleplay into the different classes that make up a munchkin build, doesn't make a build any less munchkiny. That build is munchkiny. It was developed well in-game, but good roleplay doesn't negate munchkinism.
Hmmm.. I thought munchkinism was the act of ignoring roleplaying and organic character building in effort to make the best character possible.
If a smart character (decent Int) makes smart choices and decisions in his training due to responding to specific in-game events... how is that munchkin?
It seems your definition of munchkin is much more general: Anything that uses powerful game options.
Is a straight classed Fighter that was built to be a trip-machine in 3.5e a munchkin? How about a straight Cleric or Druid that happens to have a particular set of spells that makes him win every encounter?
By that definition... a Wizard with his extremely high Intelligence score, being played accurately, would qualify as a munchkin.
|
Anyone claiming that their multi-PrC PC was developed organically is going to face a lot of scepticism, as it's very difficult to accidentally qualify for most of them. Players are forced to read ahead, and pick skills and feats accordingly, despite never having met anyone from the PrC or even knowing they exist.
That's a shame, as there are lots of points in a campaign where joining an organisation, or learning a secret technique, would make perfect sense.
However, it isn't going to happen, as the players are told 'You should have spent your last 3 feats differently; now you won't qualify until you've gone up 6 more levels...'.
It would be great if they relied more on RP prerequisites, and less on BAB, skills, and feats. However, that would require their powers to be toned down. Less people would object to PrC, if they granted variant abilities, or alternate class features, instead of the base class progression.
But as long as a PrC provides everything that the base class provides, plus bells and whistles on top, they have to artificially restrict access by forcing the player to waste choices on skills and feats that no-one would normally take (Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil?).
If they don't, and the pre-reqs are things that you would take anyway, it simply becomes a no-brainer choice, and you've effectively just written a new base class, better than the original (Radiant Servant?).
|
|
Just because a person can make up a backstory that works, or roleplay into the different classes that make up a munchkin build, doesn't make a build any less munchkiny. That build is munchkiny. It was developed well in-game, but good roleplay doesn't negate munchkinism.Hmmm.. I thought munchkinism was the act of ignoring roleplaying and organic character building in effort to make the best character possible.
If a smart character (decent Int) makes smart choices and decisions in his training due to responding to specific in-game events... how is that munchkin?
It seems your definition of munchkin is much more general: Anything that uses powerful game options.
Is a straight classed Fighter that was built to be a trip-machine in 3.5e a munchkin? How about a straight Cleric or Druid that happens to have a particular set of spells that makes him win every encounter?
By that definition... a Wizard with his extremely high Intelligence score, being played accurately, would qualify as a munchkin.
Munchkinism isn't really about ignoring Roleplaying, it's about building an uber-powerful PC that can be nigh-unstoppable by RAW. In a group of other munchkins this isn't much of an issue but when certain PCs are normal and your munchkin is vastly more powerful than the others in the group it can be a problem.
You can use roleplay to justify a build like that if you wish or totally ignore Roleplay and still make the same character. A straight wizard can be a munchkin PC depending on choices made. Same with certain other classes. Your so called 'organic character building' of that 6 classed guy is nothing more than using RP to justify a munchkin build.Usually a munchkin doesn't realize that they are a munchkin and when pointed out to them they tend to be very defensive.
Didn't have players arguing?Reread my post. I think you misread something.
Yeah just a bit, early morning sorry.
|
Another easy way of restricting players is to allow them only a certain numbers of Classes (and Prestige Classes) they can take.
I did that for the game I'm about to GM: The players can only take up to 3 Classes including Prestige Classes.
That is how it was handled when Neverwinter Nights was released. I like this rule personally.
Munchkinism isn't really about ignoring Roleplaying, it's about building an uber-powerful PC that can be nigh-unstoppable by RAW. In a group of other munchkins this isn't much of an issue but when certain PCs are normal and your munchkin is vastly more powerful than the others in the group it can be a problem.
You can use roleplay to justify a build like that if you wish or totally ignore Roleplay and still make the same character. A straight wizard can be a munchkin PC depending on choices made. Same with certain other classes. Your so called 'organic character building' of that 6 classed guy is nothing more than using RP to justify a munchkin build.
Usually a munchkin doesn't realize that they are a munchkin and when pointed out to them they tend to be very defensive.
No that's playing a powerful character. Munchkinism is about pounding the numbers and only the numbers.
To say that an 'organic' character (which is a BS term, no character is ever 'organic' you read the book at all then it's not organic).
mostly I see this as a straight repeat of the 'stormwind fallacy'.
By your diffinition anyone that does anything to get a decent character is being a munchkin.
People get defensive because others are usually saying "munchkin" as if it's a bad thing. It's not. A soldier doesn't go into battle with a pistol, "Becuase his daddy gave it too him and it fits his backstory" he takes the M-16 because that's what's going to see him through.
People IRL make choices that make the most of what they already have. They aren't called Munchkins, they are called "Intelligent", "upward mobile", or "sir" by their underlings. Doing the same with a character in a role playing game is much more 'organic' or 'real to life'.
You don't ask people what 'class' they are in real life and you don't do it in game.
It especially annoys me when DMs do this and get upset at a player for having a powerful character, but don't mind pulling monsters from non-core sources, or adding class levels to monsters. That's not a "stock" monster so you can't throw it against my "stock" character.
|
|
Munchkins can be power gamers, but not all power gamers are munchkins. Munchkins are generally considered cheaters, they'll try to get every advantage to "win" D&D, by any means necessary, like ignoring class restrictions and bending the rules to their advantage. Power gamers use the rules, by min/maxing and class feature synergy, to make powerful characters.
Nothing wrong with power gaming, if that's the way the group plays. Munchkinism, on the other hand, it just flat cheating.
Yeah, the above post wasn't trying to tell anyone the "One True Way" or anything, and I allow quite a bit in my homebrew that fits thematically, from a variety of sources.
I've just seen a lot of "well, the rules this" and "the rules that", and I wanted to point out PrCs aren't a player's prerogative, but the DMs, RAW.
Everyone also discusses limiting people's "fun". Well, if only one person in a group feels their "fun" is being ruined by a DM who doesn't allow every book on the player's shelf, perhaps it is that person who needs to grow and accept that his desires may be what limits the other four or five people's fun.
The issue is not black and white, cut and dried, and "one size fits all". Every table is different, so find out how a group plays before you try to join them. Whining because a group doesn't allow Bo9S or whatever just shows bad form. And if you're a "build a story, I just want to roleplay" type, don't join a game full of combat lovin' power gamers.
And, DMs, if you post on a message board or the FLGS cork board for players, and you get four respondents who are all min/max power gamer types (and that's it), because you weren't explicit in describing that your game is close to core and roleplay heavy with little combat (or vice versa on both sides), either adapt to them, or sit on the bench.
Houstonderek's right on the money with this post. A great game is about the partnership in storytelling between the DM and players. If the DM's going to make the investment to present the story, he has the right to limit which actors are going to be a part of that story. It's bad form on the DM's part to severely limit things so much that nobody has any options. And likewise it's bad form on the players part if they create a concept without a thought as to the story and are only thinking about how "uber" they can be.
Munchkins can be power gamers, but not all power gamers are munchkins. Munchkins are generally considered cheaters, they'll try to get every advantage to "win" D&D, by any means necessary, like ignoring class restrictions and bending the rules to their advantage. Power gamers use the rules, by min/maxing and class feature synergy, to make powerful characters.
Nothing wrong with power gaming, if that's the way the group plays. Munchkinism, on the other hand, it just flat cheating.
That's exactly my point. Powergaming and Munchkin playing aren't the same thing.
Powergaming is simply the top end of this game's "gamemastery". Intelligent characters making the best choices within the world they exist is what it's about.
Munchkins are in it to "win". Meta-gaming and 'roll'playing are the best it has to offer... and outright cheating, griefing, and generally being a jerk is the worst, and more likely outcome.
.
My exercise above was to show that multiclassing can seem like cheese when taken out of context... but seems natural and 'organic' when put into actual play.
The above character didn't use roleplaying as an excuse. He found he had difficulty at 10th+ keeping up with the enemies and his caster friends, and decided to branch out to become more effective.
And he's hardly a "powerful" character... there's plenty of builds that would do wonders in his spot. Giving teammates attack or move actions at the expense of his own, or foregoing damage to stop a dangerous enemy's charge aren't "spotlight" abilities. If anything, they make the group shine better.
Munchkins can be power gamers, but not all power gamers are munchkins. Munchkins are generally considered cheaters, they'll try to get every advantage to "win" D&D, by any means necessary, like ignoring class restrictions and bending the rules to their advantage. Power gamers use the rules, by min/maxing and class feature synergy, to make powerful characters.
Nothing wrong with power gaming, if that's the way the group plays. Munchkinism, on the other hand, it just flat cheating.
So, then, how is using the multiclass rules as written cheating? There's nothing in the rules that says that a PC can't have one level of every base class (though they'd do well to stick to the non-casters). It's not cheating. It may make a character with excellent saves, but there's far too little synergy to pull that off completely.
I remember someone having a sig on the WotC boards about his character, who he nicknamed "the many."
Currently playing Gorstagg Dundragon "The Many"
Ranger 1, Fighter 1, Barbarian 1, Hexblade 1, Swashbuckler 1, Dragonslayer 1, Dragon Stalker 1, Bear Warrior 1, Dragon Kith 1, Dark Hunter 1, Cave Lord 1, Invisible Blade 1, Chaotician 1, Duelist 1, Horizon Walker 1... 4 more prc's to go. He is far from optimized but I laugh my butt off everytime I play.
Quite honestly, I'm impressed by his ingenuity at stringing all that together, and I'd be interested in trying such a character out, just to see how he works. Doesn't make the character a munchkin - I'm sure his saves were excellent, but his skills are likely to be all over the place, and he certainly can't have any particularly powerful abilities. There's likely a small amount of synergy, but not a ton.
So, how is heavy use of multiclassing "cheating," which is what you're saying it is. {b]IF[/b] there were a hard rule saying you could only have two classes if you gave the DM a really yummy cake, then doing so without getting the cake first would be cheating, but as of now? It's not Munchkinism the way you've defined it.
I don't think houstonderek was the one that was saying all multiclassing was bad, rather that DM's going for a particular style should be allowed to limit what they want.. playing devil's advocate a bit.
That, and something about sandwiches.
Honestly, if anything with more than 3 classes (or even with three classes apparently) is munchkiny then I am a munchkin, proud of it and laugh at your inability to cope.
YEA! That's what I'm talking ABOUT!!! COPE BIA***ES!!
(Though 2 Base (maybe 1 PrC)usually makes me quite content.)EDIT: And I agree with the statement that whatever the DM says goes. If you don't agree, simply put, find a new group/game. Reverse COPE BIA***ES!!
Honestly, if anything with more than 3 classes (or even with three classes apparently) is munchkiny then I am a munchkin, proud of it and laugh at your inability to cope.YEA! That's what I'm talking ABOUT!!! COPE BIA***ES!!
(Though 2 Base (maybe 1 PrC)usually makes me quite content.)EDIT: And I agree with the statement that whatever the DM says goes. If you don't agree, simply put, find a new group/game. Reverse COPE BIA***ES!!
But beyond all that it comes down to communication between the DM and the players so everyone is happy. A hard coded rule isn't needed.
Munchkinism isn't really about ignoring Roleplaying, it's about building an uber-powerful PC that can be nigh-unstoppable by RAW.
In the long run, then, every munchkin by this definition is a single-classed wizard or cleric (or one of the two with PrCs of Cheese like Iot7V and RSoP). NO multi-base-class combo, no matter how well-conceived, can ever come close to a full caster.
Unless, as mentioned before, a "munchkin" is anyone who wants his warrior to be able to keep up with the full casters at levels 13-19, I'm failing to see how making rules against multiple base classes can possibly prevent munchkinism. Indeed, if Derek's definition is correct (munchkins are cheaters), then creation of houserules against multiclassing actually creates munchkins as well, because it makes formerly-legitimate characters become suddently illegal.
Is it stupid to make a barbarian 1/wizard 1/monk 1/sorcerer 1? Yes, absolutely. Is it annoying as well? In all likelihood. But the only way to multiclass for greater power is to start stacking cheesy prestige classes. Stacking base classes just doesn't work. So let's call it what it is: not munchkinism, but "silly-ism."
|
|
Munchkins can be power gamers, but not all power gamers are munchkins. Munchkins are generally considered cheaters, they'll try to get every advantage to "win" D&D, by any means necessary, like ignoring class restrictions and bending the rules to their advantage. Power gamers use the rules, by min/maxing and class feature synergy, to make powerful characters.
Nothing wrong with power gaming, if that's the way the group plays. Munchkinism, on the other hand, it just flat cheating.
So, then, how is using the multiclass rules as written cheating? There's nothing in the rules that says that a PC can't have one level of every base class (though they'd do well to stick to the non-casters). It's not cheating. It may make a character with excellent saves, but there's far too little synergy to pull that off completely.
I remember someone having a sig on the WotC boards about his character, who he nicknamed "the many."
Currently playing Gorstagg Dundragon "The Many"
Ranger 1, Fighter 1, Barbarian 1, Hexblade 1, Swashbuckler 1, Dragonslayer 1, Dragon Stalker 1, Bear Warrior 1, Dragon Kith 1, Dark Hunter 1, Cave Lord 1, Invisible Blade 1, Chaotician 1, Duelist 1, Horizon Walker 1... 4 more prc's to go. He is far from optimized but I laugh my butt off everytime I play.Quite honestly, I'm impressed by his ingenuity at stringing all that together, and I'd be interested in trying such a character out, just to see how he works. Doesn't make the character a munchkin - I'm sure his saves were excellent, but his skills are likely to be all over the place, and he certainly can't have any particularly powerful abilities. There's likely a small amount of synergy, but not a ton.
So, how is heavy use of multiclassing "cheating," which is what you're saying it is. {b]IF[/b] there were a hard rule saying you could only have two classes if you gave the DM a really yummy cake, then doing so without getting the cake first would be cheating, but as of now? It's not...
I said munchkins cheat. Dipping isn't munchkinism unless the player willfully ignores requirements for a class and takes it anyway. And, if any of the classes you listed are PrCs, and the player didn't consult with the DM before taking it, then, according to the DMG, that, also could be construed as cheating since, RAW, PrCs are the DMs prerogative to allow, not the player's prerogative to just take.
Munchkinism isn't about level dipping and whatnot, it's about a general attitude towards gaming.
|
|
Munchkinism isn't really about ignoring Roleplaying, it's about building an uber-powerful PC that can be nigh-unstoppable by RAW.In the long run, then, every munchkin by this definition is a single-classed wizard or cleric (or one of the two with PrCs of Cheese like Iot7V and RSoP). NO multi-base-class combo, no matter how well-conceived, can ever come close to a full caster.
Unless, as mentioned before, a "munchkin" is anyone who wants his warrior to be able to keep up with the full casters at levels 13-19, I'm failing to see how making rules against multiple base classes can possibly prevent munchkinism. Indeed, if Derek's definition is correct (munchkins are cheaters), then creation of houserules against multiclassing actually creates munchkins as well, because it makes formerly-legitimate characters become suddently illegal.
Is it stupid to make a barbarian 1/wizard 1/monk 1/sorcerer 1? Yes, absolutely. Is it annoying as well? In all likelihood. But the only way to multiclass for greater power is to start stacking cheesy prestige classes. Stacking base classes just doesn't work. So let's call it what it is: not munchkinism, but "silly-ism."
Munchkins are a well defined subset of the gaming universe, use your google-fu.
Munchkins are a well defined subset of the gaming universe, use your google-fu.
A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun.
Like I said, in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, this applies best to single-classed clerics and wizards...
|
|
Munchkins are a well defined subset of the gaming universe, use your google-fu.Munchkinism isn't really about ignoring Roleplaying, it's about building an uber-powerful PC that can be nigh-unstoppable by RAW.In the long run, then, every munchkin by this definition is a single-classed wizard or cleric (or one of the two with PrCs of Cheese like Iot7V and RSoP). NO multi-base-class combo, no matter how well-conceived, can ever come close to a full caster.
Unless, as mentioned before, a "munchkin" is anyone who wants his warrior to be able to keep up with the full casters at levels 13-19, I'm failing to see how making rules against multiple base classes can possibly prevent munchkinism. Indeed, if Derek's definition is correct (munchkins are cheaters), then creation of houserules against multiclassing actually creates munchkins as well, because it makes formerly-legitimate characters become suddently illegal.
Is it stupid to make a barbarian 1/wizard 1/monk 1/sorcerer 1? Yes, absolutely. Is it annoying as well? In all likelihood. But the only way to multiclass for greater power is to start stacking cheesy prestige classes. Stacking base classes just doesn't work. So let's call it what it is: not munchkinism, but "silly-ism."
A prime example of munchkinism is the character that showed up in my first 3.5 campaign I ever ran. He was playing a fighter with a feat from Lords of Madness that gave him a ten foot reach, then using a polearm as his primary weapon so that he had an overall 20 foot reach. When that character died, turns out optimized fighters don't make good rogues or clerics, he wouldn't roll up a new character so he could keep playing. When I asked why he said "I don't have a computer here, so I can't look at the right boards." Another player I used to play with would e-mail a self-proclaimed munchkin to roll up his characters so that he could have the best character in our group. He is no longer welcome at our table.
|
|
Munchkins are a well defined subset of the gaming universe, use your google-fu.A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun.Like I said, in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, this applies best to single-classed clerics and wizards...
Clerics and wizards are the "favored class" of munchkins, sure (I think they get an extra skill point or something), but taking either of those classes (and you forgot the 3x druid, who might outshine both) doesn't necessarily make one a munchkin.
It would be like calling, say, sun dried tomatoes "munchkin". Sure, a lot of chefs used them ten years ago because they were apparently "full of win", but there were chefs that used them because they actually improved a dish. Munchkinism is a crime of intent, not potential. :)
A prime example of munchkinism is the character that showed up in my first 3.5 campaign I ever ran. He was playing a fighter with a feat from Lords of Madness that gave him a ten foot reach, then using a polearm as his primary weapon so that he had an overall 20 foot reach.
Which means he might be viable at 13th level, instead of encountering obsolescence at 12th? All of this sounds to me like people who just want to keep playing during the 2nd half of the campaign. The overwhelming superiority of full casters is a systems glitch, not a player one.
A player who wants an elven wizard/incantatrix/initiate of the seven veils/abjurant champion? THAT'S a munchkin! Anyone playing a trip-specialist fighter in 3.5? That's just a survivalist. The rules are skewed.
How about this? Someone show a 15th-level multi-base-class character that's all-around better than a 15th level cleric. As soon as this is done, the prohibition against multiple base classes makes sense to me as a means of preventing juvenile powergaming. Until then, it remains one of the following: (a) a symptom of a DM who sees no sense in things except a certain way (not necessarily a bad thing), or (b) a means for a power-tripping DM to demonstrate his overlordship over his hapless players (almost certainly a bad thing).
|
|
A prime example of munchkinism is the character that showed up in my first 3.5 campaign I ever ran. He was playing a fighter with a feat from Lords of Madness that gave him a ten foot reach, then using a polearm as his primary weapon so that he had an overall 20 foot reach.Which means he might be viable at 13th level, instead of encountering obsolescence at 12th? All of this sounds to me like people who just want to keep playing during the 2nd half of the campaign. The overwhelming superiority of full casters is a systems glitch, not a player one.
A player who wants an elven wizard/incantatrix/initiate of the seven veils/abjurant champion? THAT'S a munchkin! Anyone playing a trip-specialist fighter in 3.5? That's just a survivalist. The rules are skewed.
"Keeping up" isn't a munchkin trait, it's an unfortunate side effect of a lot of the unnecessary changes 3x brought to the system. Plus, as we've discussed, I think the designers HATED fighters.
Playing in a manner that makes everyone else at the table a spectator, well...
Playing in a manner that makes everyone else at the table a spectator, well...
Right, but that's a player personality trait that has absolutely nothing to do with multiclassing base classes. The argument has been that too many base classes = munchkin. I have yet to see this being remotely accurate. Maybe some munchkin players do so; I don't know. But far more will opt for easier pickings. "Munchkinism" is NOT in any way an argument against allowing base-class multiclassing, any more than outlawing RGPing will prevent murder because some gamers have murdered in the past.
Banning multiple base classes is simply a demonstration of DM control; no more, no less.
|
|
Playing in a manner that makes everyone else at the table a spectator, well...Right, but that's a player personality trait that has absolutely nothing to do with multiclassing base classes. The argument has been that too many base classes = munchkin. I have yet to see this being remotely accurate. Maybe some munchkin players do so; I don't know. But far more will opt for easier pickings. "Munchkinism" is NOT in any way an argument against allowing base-class multi-classing; it's a separate issue entirely.
I thought I had put that issue to rest! Obviously just dipping into classes to keep up isn't munchkinism, neither is dipping to meet a specific character concept (well, unless that "concept" is to be "uber l337 roxxorz fiddly-diddly-doo).
Munchkinism stems from the ridiculous belief that you can "win" D&D. Sometimes, if you see cheese where there isn't any intent of cheese just means you need a sandwich. Don't let hunger interfere with your judgment of others' intent.
I thought I had put that issue to rest!
For you, it probably has been. But remember the original thread intent; namely, to ban multiple base classes -- and why that should be done. Most people haven't faced the main reason "why" -- namely, as a demonstration of DM power and control.
|
|
Banning multiple base classes is simply a demonstration of DM control; no more, no less.
Um, yeah, I think some of the people were more referring to multiple PrCs (which I also think I successfully addressed), the ones who were going on about dipping in base classes need to get over it.
The OP didn't specify, so I assumed he meant PrC abuse, but, having reread, maybe I shouldn't have made that assumption. Sorry :)
Um, yeah, I think some of the people were more referring to multiple PrCs (which I also think I successfully addressed), the ones who were going on about dipping in base classes need to get over it.
It's kind of eerie how often you and I wind up agreeing in the end, when it comes to gaming styles...
|
|
Um, yeah, I think some of the people were more referring to multiple PrCs (which I also think I successfully addressed), the ones who were going on about dipping in base classes need to get over it.It's kind of eerie how often you and I wind up agreeing in the end, when it comes to gaming styles...
Not really, we have a common geographic and "age and edition we were introduced to gaming" background, so it isn't unexpected :)
The OP didn't specify, so I assumed he meant PrC abuse, but, having reread, maybe I shouldn't have made that assumption.
I'm looking at the OP's proposal that a fighter/rogue should have to burn a feat for the privilege of taking that 2nd class, for example, and the various other proposals to set a hard limit on base classes to 2 or less.
Not really, we have a common geographic and "age and edition we were introduced to gaming" background, so it isn't unexpected :)
Good point; the fact that Mssrs. Jacob and Mona seem to share that demographic might be why we're both here on Paizo...
|
|
Not really, we have a common geographic and "age and edition we were introduced to gaming" background, so it isn't unexpected :)Good point; the fact that Mssrs. Jacob and Mona seem to share that demographic might be why we're both here on Paizo...
True, very true. I definitely see a love of the origins of the game in the "fluff" of Paizo products, and Mona is a big fan of Greyhawk, and it shows in his work. Easy to get excited when your game accessory designer likes the same stuff you do :)
|
|
The OP didn't specify, so I assumed he meant PrC abuse, but, having reread, maybe I shouldn't have made that assumption.I'm looking at the OP's proposal that a fighter/rogue should have to burn a feat for the privilege of taking that 2nd class, for example, and the various other proposals to set a hard limit on base classes to 2 or less.
Fighter/Rogue has so many legitimate "background" reasons a player could devise that it seems to be the LEAST weird base class combo I can think of. And you lose enough from each class (especially under Beta rules) that it easily balances out any benefits you get from combining the two.
Although the fact that it is your favorite combo doesn't affect your opinion one iota.
I played a lot of paladin/bards -- not for the Cha synergy (although it's a nice "plus") -- but because the "knightly troubador" is a compelling trope. In 3.5 that was technically against the rules, what with bards being non-lawful and paladins being unable to multiclass -- but somehow I never felt like a munchkin. Then again, you'll never see me playing the aforementioned wizard/abjurant champion/initiatite of the seven veils...
Roland immediately comes to mind...
Ariosto (and Robert Browning, for that matter) are always good for gaming fodder.
Speaking of which... Finnish Kalevala (Elisas Lonnrot). Vainamoinen is a warrior/ranger-type, supremely powerful wizard, awesome bard. 3 classes, at least.
First off, I realized when I attempted to post I hadn't picked an avatar yet. Houston's comment popped into my head when I saw this one. Yay for Roland of Gilead!
Over four pages I'm sure this subject has been done to death, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I've been DMing for almost seven years, nearly all of which has been 3x, though I started on 2e. My buddy Adam (and current DM) is a diehard 2e player. He won't touch anything beyond, because he feels it's all about power in 3x. I try to subtly correct him (usually with a *cough*skillsandpowers*cough*) but it falls on deaf ears. Since the game's inception there have been splatbooks with ridiculously unbalanced options. However, just because it's powerful doesn't mean I'm going to disallow it. I only disallow things on a case-by-case basis, and usually if it's disruptive to the group in some way.
I've had several gaming groups over the years and it's come to the point that I can usually spot problem players within the first two or three sessions, if not at character creation. They aren't a problem because they're trying to make a "win" button. They're a problem because their style of play is disruptive to the group. It's the player that must be dealt with, not the character. I've seen players come up with amazing builds, and yes, most of the time they're very powerful and successful at survival. Sometimes they're even a "win" button. That doesn't mean it's bad. I don't care so much about your build, or even if it's eloquently explained in your backstory. All I care about is that you roleplay it.
This is an RPG. If you just wander with the party waiting to kill things, you're going to be very boring--and very bored. The best characters I've seen played are often standard core-book single class characters, but not always. No matter what your class is, if you roleplay it I'm going to reward you. My games emphasize roleplaying, not combat. That's my DM style. Others DM differently, and that's cool too. I don't recall who said it, but I agree that you should make sure the game you're entering is the style you want to play before doing so. I rarely have a long-term problem with munchkins because my groups are usually roleplay-heavy, which does not appeal to them, and they eventually migrate to a different gaming group because they get bored. I try to let them know ahead of time my games aren't usually combat heavy, but sometimes it doesn't sink in until they experience it.
Now in terms of sheer mechanics, I do not believe the multiclass system is all that broken. Yes, at 4th level, that Ranger/Paladin/Wizard/Monk may seem pretty potent, but even by 12th level he's really going to start lagging behind in class abilities. PrC's do complicate things, but that's why DM's aught to make sure they know exactly which PrC's they are allowing in their campaign setting. Just make sure your players know from the start, so when your 13th level wizard comes to you wanting to know where to go to become an Archmage, you don't have to see the look of crushing disappointment on his face.
9 times out of 10, if the DM and players openly discuss these things before the game gets started, it eliminates a lot of the arguments, headaches, and bad blood before they can even surface. Not always, but most of the time. RPG's are based on communication. A lack thereof is, of course, going to cause problems.
And dangit, now I want a sandwich.
|
|
^That was really well expressed, AP, I couldn't have said it much better than that. I believe it's really more about the people at the gaming table, than the quirks of a game system. (Although a good group can still suffer and choke on a bad system.)
The OP is asking about handling abuse of the rules, but in truth, should the real advice the OP needs be on handling his player(s)? Is the communication at the table going well? Is everyone "on the same, or related, page" so-to-speak? Are their gaming styles and motives compatible? Does the DM keep the golden rule(s) handy in a back pocket?
If the table dynamics are going reasonable well - as "well" is defined for that group -- I don't think rules abuse in that particular game would be happening. So I am betting the OP has people problems... (Well, he didn't specify, but he got us all reading, thinking and talking.)
And ultimately, people problems will not be repaired by tinkering with game system rules.
@houstonderek: thank you for quoting the DMG. Sometimes some gamers need the reminders! :-)
A prime example of munchkinism is the character that showed up in my first 3.5 campaign I ever ran. He was playing a fighter with a feat from Lords of Madness that gave him a ten foot reach, then using a polearm as his primary weapon so that he had an overall 20 foot reach. When that character died, turns out optimized fighters don't make good rogues or clerics, he wouldn't roll up a new character so he could keep playing. When I asked why he said "I don't have a computer here, so I can't look at the right boards." Another player I used to play with would e-mail a self-proclaimed munchkin to roll up his characters so that he could have the best character in our group. He is no longer...
I don't know whether to be scared, disgusted, or outraged. BURN THE HERETIC!
|
The OP didn't specify, so I assumed he meant PrC abuse, but, having reread, maybe I shouldn't have made that assumption.I'm looking at the OP's proposal that a fighter/rogue should have to burn a feat for the privilege of taking that 2nd class, for example, and the various other proposals to set a hard limit on base classes to 2 or less.Fighter/Rogue has so many legitimate "background" reasons a player could devise that it seems to be the LEAST weird base class combo I can think of. And you lose enough from each class (especially under Beta rules) that it easily balances out any benefits you get from combining the two.
Yeah, Fighter/Rogue makes complete sense.
On the general topic of the thread, I am concerned about the changes to the PrC saving throw progressions in the Beta, which introduce inhomogeneity to fix a problem hardly anyone appears to have ever seen, whilst leaving the old system in place in the base 20-level classes. It makes no sense, to me, but I fear it'll make its way into the final product.
|
Not trying to be devil's advocate. What kind of abuse are you guys seeing that can't be mitigated through limiting the number of splat books a player can use?
One of the best suggestions I've seen along this line is that in a campaign each character (not player) may bring 1 splat book into character creation. Once all the characters are created, at a table of 5 people, you typically have 2-3 different splat books as some players have chosen the same book.
After character creation characters can delve into any of the splat books that are "in the game." The only way new books are added is when a new character is rolled up after his untimely demise.
Each campaign has a little different flavour without to many uber multibook characters.
I also ask my players to play characters that rolewise make sense. They have to take the whole prestige class, both gaming mechanic, and character role, and not just the mechanic. So the holy what not can't also be an arcane archery assassin, they just don't mesh.
Boiling this down, players ask a GM to create a campaign where the suspension of disbelief isn't challenged by blatant contradiction, and as a GM I ask the players to do the same.