heil all! i've been fortunate enough never to encounter any munchkin players in my gaming groups (two exceptions. one was a two-handed fighter who wielded an oversized bastards sword, and one was a wannabe munchkin who we suspect cheated with his rolls, but was so bad at optimising that he was still a subpar character).
however, i keep hearing about munchkins (often in threads about AM BARBARIAN), and was wondering if you would be willing to share your horror stories with myself and others on these boards. to protect the guilty, please refrain from mentioning names.
and... no answers. i was at least expecting AM BARBARIAN to rock up and RAGELANCEPOUNCE me for calling him a munchkin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and... no answers. i was at least expecting AM BARBARIAN to rock up and RAGELANCEPOUNCE me for calling him a munchkin.
You expected a response within 20 minutes? At 6am Central?
heil all! i've been fortunate enough never to encounter any munchkin players in my gaming groups (two exceptions. one was a two-handed fighter who wielded an oversized bastards sword,/snip
One of the PT iconics does this.
and... no answers. i was at least expecting AM BARBARIAN to rock up and RAGELANCEPOUNCE me for calling him a munchkin.You expected a response within 20 minutes? At 6am Central?
over here down under it's early evening, the perfect time for searching the forums.
One of the PT iconics does this.
not like this guy did. trust me.
then i shall define munchkin for this thread. a munchkin is someone who streaches RAW to breaking point for any bonus, couldn't find RAI with an atlas, and has minmaxed to the point where AM BARBARIAN is considered a weakling loser.
Are you familiar with the local poster named 'Ravingdork'?
i've seen his posts here and there. we differ in opinions sometimes, agree on other points.
How many ways are there to wield an over sized bastard sword?One of the PT iconics does this.not like this guy did. trust me.
two handed fighter without exotic weapon proficiency but claiming that because he's wielding it two-handed he only needs marshal weapon prof (as when it's the right size) dipping barbarian for rage and planning on dipping vivisectionist for str mutigen and enlarge person. plus a minmaxed statline, and this guy could really bring the pain. add to that his character history somehow had the most powerful people in the campaign world owing him favors, and his race picked based on what the DM likes... the list goes on.
hence munchkin.
|
I once argued that Paladin's Lay on Hands ability can RAW be used to heal undead (it's never specified as positive energy, and the healing option never says that it excludes creature types, and the 'alternate' usage to damage undead never need be used if targeting undead). I kept it up until a dev finally chimed in and admitted RAW that's right, but it wasn't his RAI.
Does that make me a munchkin? Or would I have to had actually played a paladin attempting it rather than arguing about hypotheticals on a messageboard? :D
I once argued that Paladin's Lay on Hands ability can RAW be used to heal undead (it's never specified as positive energy, and the healing option never says that it excludes creature types, and the 'alternate' usage to damage undead never need be used if targeting undead). I kept it up until a dev finally chimed in and admitted RAW that's right, but it wasn't his RAI.
Does that make me a munchkin? Or would I have to had actually played a paladin attempting it rather than arguing about hypotheticals on a messageboard? :D
that depends. did you then abuse the **** out of this loophole in such a way as to overshadow the rest of the party, or use it in some way that violates your character's concept but is somehow within the most extreme interperatation of your paladin's oath?
if the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then you may be a munchkin.
My wife allowed our friend's half-orc fighter to dual wield bastard swords at normal TWF penalties due to the character having 20+ Str and Dex. It was pretty awesome.
well, if he was proficient with them and they weren't oversized weapons then i fail to see how this is even remotely munchkinistic, as far as i can tell it falls into RAW and RAI, and makes use of the rule of cool to boot. the important distinction here is 'normal TWF penalties'. no true munchkin's going to let mere rules give any of their actions penalties!
|
Are you familiar with the local poster named 'Ravingdork'?
I don't really consider him a muchkin, or even much of an optimizer. He's just a nit-picker. I'm pretty sure he sits around thinking "How can I twist the meaning of this paragraph to completely pervert beyond recognition the intention of this rule?"
"Munchkin" and "stupid wannabe half-assed rules lawyer" aren't the same.
You can legally break the system pretty easily. And wielding an oversized weapon isn't one of them, unless you think the average bonus to damage is worth the crippling, impossible to overcome -2 to attack.
i think that the truely game-breaking bit was BAB +6/+1 at 5th level. that's what got him the incredulous looks from around our table, at any rate.
when the math error was pointed out, he eventually conceeded putting it down to a more normal levelQUOTE: "are you sure there's no way for me to have a BAB of +6 at 5th level?"
|
Are you familiar with the local poster named 'Ravingdork'?I don't really consider him a muchkin, or even much of an optimizer. He's just a nit-picker. I'm pretty sure he sits around thinking "How can I twist the meaning of this paragraph to completely pervert beyond recognition the intention of this rule?"
Actually IMO, that right there is a great definition of a munchkin to me. Someone who purposefully tries to skew the RAW to their own ends.
Actually IMO, that right there is a great definition of a munchkin to me. Someone who purposefully tries to skew the RAW to their own ends.Are you familiar with the local poster named 'Ravingdork'?I don't really consider him a muchkin, or even much of an optimizer. He's just a nit-picker. I'm pretty sure he sits around thinking "How can I twist the meaning of this paragraph to completely pervert beyond recognition the intention of this rule?"
i always had the impression that he was skewing RAW for the sake of skewing RAW, not for an on-the-table advantage. the difference between breaking the game in theory and in practice is large.
then again, i'm still new to these boards so i could be wrong.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the times I've heard Player A call Player B a munchkin (or similar term), it's almost always been when Player B wanted to use a pretty straightforward option (sometimes a single Core rule) in the exact method intended but it happened to either differ from Player A's preferred fantasy tropes or highlight just how bad at character building Player A was (or both).
The Rule of Three
If the alleged munchkin's power comes from the mixing of three (or more) sourcebooks, the combining of three unrelated mechanics, or must be described in three steps, etc; then the label might be appropriate.
If it's only got two parts/steps/books, then it's more likely they're just clever.
If it's only got one part (i.e., "I selected X for my character"), then the problem is more likely you than them.
Well since munchkining is more in regards to the intent then the effect I think we can only truly speak for ourselves. Only we know when we deliberately stretched the rules for sure. When I was first starting with 3.x both I my dm, and 2 other players misread a poorly worded ability out of dragon magazine that basically made my githzerai monk untouchable. If I posted the build (assuming i still had it which i dont), anyone here would call me a munchkin for using it that way, but I had in fact checked with my dm and the 2 other most rules lawyery members of the group on my interpretation before using it.
Anyway, there have been times where I have munchkined my character. I had a warmage, wild mage, practiced spell caster character that was damn good at blowing stuff up. Though since it was all in the same sourcebook and really just involves one feat and one prestige class it might not fit jiggys definition of munchkin. But I knew it was wonky and I took it anyway.
In d20 modern I talked my dm into letting me homebrew a 'brawler' class that was utterly rediculous. He eventually stopped using doors because his unarmed damage could punch wholes in concrete walls and it was pretty amusing.
As for the rest of my gaming group I am confident there were times some of them were munchkining, but I will leave that for any of them to post, since I shall never know for sure (unless ofcourse they tell me so).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy - I really like your Rule of Three. But since it took you three steps to explain it, does that make you a munchkin?
Dun Dun DUNNNNN!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So taking power attack (core rule book) on my samurai (ultimate combat / apg) is munchkin?
I guess I wasn't clear on a couple of points:
First and foremost, my "rule of three" is a way to check yourself if you're already inclined to call something "munchkin". If it's never suspect in the first place, Ro3 doesn't apply. If you suspect something is munchkin-ish, you use the Ro3 to check yourself.Second, Ro3 applies to things that are working together. So if Power Attack, some Samurai class feature, and a Cavalier order power from the APG were all interacting to produce the thing that was already being called munchkin, then it would pass the Ro3 test and be worth maybe doing something about. But no matter how many books your character uses, if nothing is working in concert with Power Attack, then your use of Power Attack is a "1".
My intent with Ro3 is as a defense against some of the silly people I've encountered who like to point and say "MUNCHKIIIIIN!!!" just because you're using Toughness to keep your wizard from dying so easily.
Hopefully I was more clear this time. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
heil all! i've been fortunate enough never to encounter any munchkin players in my gaming groups (two exceptions. one was a two-handed fighter who wielded an oversized bastards sword, and one was a wannabe munchkin who we suspect cheated with his rolls, but was so bad at optimising that he was still a subpar character).
however, i keep hearing about munchkins (often in threads about AM BARBARIAN), and was wondering if you would be willing to share your horror stories with myself and others on these boards. to protect the guilty, please refrain from mentioning names.
I have always taken a Munchkin to mean someone who is willing to cheat to have success, including intentionally misreading rules and such. I have played with one such person, who did stuff like trying to apply Humanoid only templates to Monstrous Humanoid because "Hey it has Humanoid in the name" and that sort of thing.
This sort of thing actually matches up with the Steve Jackson definition of Munchkin pretty well, where in the Munchkin boardgame (based on P&P RPGs) you are encouraged to cheat without anyone noticing. If you equip two headslot items at the same time and nobody catches you for 3 turns you get to keep 'em, and stuff like that.
EDIT: Also, Ravingdork is great. He notices a lot of stuff others don't. I haven't actually noticed him blatantly getting rules wrong too often (everyone gets some wrong) and he legitimate seems to want to expand his understanding of the rules. One thing that actually aggravates me with the Paizo Board community is that nobody wants to know the rules, or if they do, they want to ignore what you can do with the rules and say that it wasn't intended, or tell other people that they should use common sense in a game with magical faeries. Ravingdork doesn't do that. He spots stuff, and he comes up with clever ways to use it, or at least shows other people what to look out for.
Ravingdork deserves more honors.
|
|
I agree Ash, I just like teasing RD. :)
well, if he was proficient with them and they weren't oversized weapons then i fail to see how this is even remotely munchkinistic, as far as i can tell it falls into RAW and RAI, and makes use of the rule of cool to boot. the important distinction here is 'normal TWF penalties'. no true munchkin's going to let mere rules give any of their actions penalties!
Actually, using a bastard sword one-handed in the off-hand normally increases the penalties. My wife just Rule Zero'd that he was so strong that the extra weight didn't trouble him.
Not that he needed to use them much since he had Improved Grapple and put all his enemies in sleeper holds.
Well since munchkining is more in regards to the intent then the effect I think we can only truly speak for ourselves. Only we know when we deliberately stretched the rules for sure. When I was first starting with 3.x both I my dm, and 2 other players misread a poorly worded ability out of dragon magazine that basically made my githzerai monk untouchable. If I posted the build (assuming i still had it which i dont), anyone here would call me a munchkin for using it that way, but I had in fact checked with my dm and the 2 other most rules lawyery members of the group on my interpretation before using it.
Anyway, there have been times where I have munchkined my character. I had a warmage, wild mage, practiced spell caster character that was damn good at blowing stuff up. Though since it was all in the same sourcebook and really just involves one feat and one prestige class it might not fit jiggys definition of munchkin. But I knew it was wonky and I took it anyway.
I once played a Monk/Paladin/Sorcerer/Spellthief/Abjurant Champion/Swiftblade in 3.5.
I used the feat Ascetic Mage to get Charisma to AC (instead of Wisdom) and Abjurant champion buffed most of my defensive spells such that they gave absurd AC and lasted forever (Improved Mage Armor lasted more than 24 hours and gave +11 AC) and I could swift action cast them, too, so Shield at the beginning of every combat cost me no action (and gave +9 AC).
Swiftblade gave me free action Hastes, as well as additional benefits while Hasted, notably miss chance since I apparently moved so fast, I blurred.
When all else failed, I had Wings of Cover, an Immediate action spell that interrupted an attack and denied line of effect--essentially, it prevented any single attack, period.
Paladin gave me Charisma to saves and I got Evasion, too, so I was practically untouchable to spells. If only I could have gotten Mettle as well.
Oh, and Dispel was not really an option to deal with me because of a quirk in the rules for the feat Master Spellthief. My caster level was on the mid 20s by the end (yes, I did have Wings of Flurry, but I didn't use it much since it felt so unfair).
That was an untouchable character. Literally, I don't think I ever got hit for damage after level 12 or so. I remember once getting swarmed--totally surrounded by 8 enemies with attack bonuses in their 30s. Most of them missed outright, two couldn't get past my miss chance, and the last one crit before I canceled it with Wings of Cover. It was my shining moment of awesome.
I'm sure most people in the thread cried, "MUNCHKIN!" around the time that I mentioned my fourth class, never mind what I actually did with those classes. However, this was actually not the most powerful character in the game--I made my wife's character even better (she was a virtual buzzsaw that generated free attacks on crits--and she crit on a 12--she essentially attacked until no more enemies were standing within reach). And the GM began the arms race by encouraging the party's cleric to become a Divine Metamagic: Persist CoDzilla.
Oh, and I am being completely honest when I say this: these characters all developed organically and were played from level 1.
One thing that actually aggravates me with the Paizo Board community is that nobody wants to know the rules, or if they do, they want to ignore what you can do with the rules and say that it wasn't intended, or tell other people that they should use common sense in a game with magical faeries. Ravingdork doesn't do that. He spots stuff, and he comes up with clever ways to use it, or at least shows other people what to look out for.
And this is why you and I disagree so often :)
I view the Pathfinder rules as a guidebook for GMs to run games that their table might enjoy (i.e. I'm RAI-centric), rather than some sort of legal treatise where RAW is triumphant over RAI.
This is most often an issue when RAW is silent on an issue (see the wall of force argument going on in another thread for a perfect example of this), rather than when RAW specifically states something I disagree with - I really, really don't like overriding specific text ... but if there's something not written many people take it to mean "hey, it's not prohibited by RAW" (which is technically true) whereas to me that means "hey, that's up to GM discretion." But saying that common sense is useless in a game with fairies really does not make sense. The whole system requires that an actual human be present to interpret the rules and apply them consistently. If that doesn't need common sense, then it should be trivial to do with computers, and it isn't.
I do find the rules very important; after all, if you change the rules on a whim, how will you ever be consistent? But there's times when subtle changes in interpretation can have a vast result on quality of play, and that's what GMs are for, not to be rules-puppets dangling at the whim of the players.
One thing that actually aggravates me with the Paizo Board community is that nobody wants to know the rules, or if they do, they want to ignore what you can do with the rules and say that it wasn't intended, or tell other people that they should use common sense in a game with magical faeries. Ravingdork doesn't do that. He spots stuff, and he comes up with clever ways to use it, or at least shows other people what to look out for.And this is why you and I disagree so often :)
I view the Pathfinder rules as a guidebook for GMs to run games that their table might enjoy (i.e. I'm RAI-centric), rather than some sort of legal treatise where RAW is triumphant over RAI.
This is most often an issue when RAW is silent on an issue (see the wall of force argument going on in another thread for a perfect example of this), rather than when RAW specifically states something I disagree with - I really, really don't like overriding specific text ... but if there's something not written many people take it to mean "hey, it's not prohibited by RAW" (which is technically true) whereas to me that means "hey, that's up to GM discretion." But saying that common sense is useless in a game with fairies really does not make sense. The whole system requires that an actual human be present to interpret the rules and apply them consistently. If that doesn't need common sense, then it should be trivial to do with computers, and it isn't.
I do find the rules very important; after all, if you change the rules on a whim, how will you ever be consistent? But there's times when subtle changes in interpretation can have a vast result on quality of play, and that's what GMs are for, not to be rules-puppets dangling at the whim of the players.
Well I'm a firm believer that if the rules say you can do something, there should probably be a darn good reason that you can't. I am also a firm believer that just because the rules don't say you can't do something doesn't mean you can. There's a difference between following the rules and unofficially "patching" gaps in the rules by making up stuff and then using that without GM permission (or anything of that nature).
I myself have a number of house rules, but when I go to change something, or to ban something, there is a lot of consideration that goes into that, and generally a conversation or three with my players about that.
Well I'm a firm believer that if the rules say you can do something, there should probably be a darn good reason that you can't. I am also a firm believer that just because the rules don't say you can't do something doesn't mean you can. There's a difference between following the rules and unofficially "patching" gaps in the rules by making up stuff and then using that without GM permission (or anything of that nature).
I myself have a number of house rules, but when I go to change something, or to ban something, there is a lot of consideration that goes into that, and generally a conversation or three with my players about that.
Hm. Sounds an awful lot like how I think about such things. Methinks you might just like to argue :)
Ultimate Mutually Argumented Destruction
"Munchkin" and "stupid wannabe half-assed rules lawyer" aren't the same.
You can legally break the system pretty easily. And wielding an oversized weapon isn't one of them, unless you think the average bonus to damage is worth the crippling, impossible to overcome -2 to attack.i think that the truely game-breaking bit was BAB +6/+1 at 5th level. that's what got him the incredulous looks from around our table, at any rate.
when the math error was pointed out, he eventually conceeded putting it down to a more normal level
QUOTE: "are you sure there's no way for me to have a BAB of +6 at 5th level?"
That actually isn't a munchkin... Because the rules just plain don't work that way and there's no way around it. Munchkins twist the meaning of a rule to fit their needs, even if that doesn't make sense.
You just can't have +6 BAB at 5th level and that's that. Him claiming that he has doesn't make him a munchkin, just a power-obsessed person with no real knowledge of the rules.
Hm. Sounds an awful lot like how I think about such things. Methinks you might just like to argue :)Well I'm a firm believer that if the rules say you can do something, there should probably be a darn good reason that you can't. I am also a firm believer that just because the rules don't say you can't do something doesn't mean you can. There's a difference between following the rules and unofficially "patching" gaps in the rules by making up stuff and then using that without GM permission (or anything of that nature).
I myself have a number of house rules, but when I go to change something, or to ban something, there is a lot of consideration that goes into that, and generally a conversation or three with my players about that.
I'm a stubborn bastard, but I really don't like arguing as much as people think I do. :P
heil all! i've been fortunate enough never to encounter any munchkin players in my gaming groups (two exceptions. one was a two-handed fighter who wielded an oversized bastards sword, and one was a wannabe munchkin who we suspect cheated with his rolls, but was so bad at optimising that he was still a subpar character).
however, i keep hearing about munchkins (often in threads about AM BARBARIAN), and was wondering if you would be willing to share your horror stories with myself and others on these boards. to protect the guilty, please refrain from mentioning names.
I have always taken a Munchkin to mean someone who is willing to cheat to have success, including intentionally misreading rules and such. I have played with one such person, who did stuff like trying to apply Humanoid only templates to Monstrous Humanoid because "Hey it has Humanoid in the name" and that sort of thing.
This sort of thing actually matches up with the Steve Jackson definition of Munchkin pretty well, where in the Munchkin boardgame (based on P&P RPGs) you are encouraged to cheat without anyone noticing. If you equip two headslot items at the same time and nobody catches you for 3 turns you get to keep 'em, and stuff like that.
EDIT: Also, Ravingdork is great. He notices a lot of stuff others don't. I haven't actually noticed him blatantly getting rules wrong too often (everyone gets some wrong) and he legitimate seems to want to expand his understanding of the rules. One thing that actually aggravates me with the Paizo Board community is that nobody wants to know the rules, or if they do, they want to ignore what you can do with the rules and say that it wasn't intended, or tell other people that they should use common sense in a game with magical faeries. Ravingdork doesn't do that. He spots stuff, and he comes up with clever ways to use it, or at least shows other people what to look out for.
Ravingdork deserves more honors.
Sometimes his questions are hypothetical, and sometimes he is serious, but he never lets people know which is which. He thinks that by pretending it is real people give it more attention, but people will argue anyway so all he is doing is killing his reputation. He has complained about how people view him, but you can't post such questions, and make people think you are trying to use loop holes all the time, and really expect any different. I figure he is a victim of his own success since he is pretty convincing when arguing his hypothetical questions.
He also gets caught up in the letter of the rules too much.
His tirade on blink dogs being sorcerers is an example of that.
He has gotten better with the rules though.
The issue about people not wanting to know the rules is more about them not wanting to admit they are wrong.
The issue about people not wanting to know the rules is more about them not wanting to admit they are wrong.
You'd be surprised how many people favorited a post of mine where I admitted I was wrong about something. There's definitely something to this.
I've actually played in a game with a munchkin. It really killed the immersion of the game for me. So basically I was playing a rogue, but I wasn't really optimizing and had ranks in jump. We ran into ropers in a tight dungeon. There was a mage who managed to grab a branch of one of the ropers that I happened to land inside. Munchkin argued that the roper should be flat-footed because it was grappled. Although it was ruling in my favor, it was like taking a bite out of a cheesecake you saw your friend mug off of an old lady. :/ Same munchkin didn't even know the features of his own class, trying to target multiple people for a challenge at once, took forever with every turn... In another game the same person argued that characters with an ECL should also get wealth by level equal to their ECL, you know despite the fact that they would be going through the same adventure as level 1 humans...