Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Different games, or sequential editions of the same game?Hussar said:
Computers beat up my role player
Storm Raven
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
Or the 1e fighter might show you up at first level, with an 18/00 strength (hey, if you get to have a 20 Strength in 3e, I get to max out as a 1e guy) and double weapon specialization. Then I get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds on the fighter attack table at +6 to hit, and +10 to damage. Heck, if I read the 1e DMG I might find the section on attacking with two weapons and run my Dexterity up to 16 or so, pick up a pair of hand axes, and attack 5 times every 2 rounds at +6/+6 and +10/+10 to damage.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Storm Raven said:
Sure, but if you don't cheat, what are the odds of rolling an 18/00 Strength? Even if you use the most Munchkinny method of 1e, the odds are still somewhat less than 1%.
Conversely, what are the odds of being able to get an 18 Strength and 15 Dexterity using the pretty common 35-point-buy method of the current edition? Wouldn't that be 100%?
There is no doubt that 1e characters were far more variable in their abilities at 1st level than 3e characters. They certainly had more potential to be so (random chance of psionic powers, anyone?). But 3e characters are certain to be optimized for their level, and that is far more muchkinny IMHO.
Which is my way of saying that while I agree that the UA represented a sudden leap in power to 1e characters, I still don't buy it as the MMBE!
IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.
RC
EDIT: Ever notice how many forum discussions resemble, in the final analysis, Monty Python routines?
Storm Raven
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
If I am using the methods provided in UA for generating a fighter, I am almost certain to get an 18+ Strength and a 15+ Dexterity. Which, when coupled with double specialization and fighting with two weapons, gives me at least 5/2 attacks at +4/+4 and +6/+6 damage. And that is if I roll poorly on my % strength roll; I am likely to be much better.
Of course, I could totally munchkin out and play a cavalier (or better yet, a UA paladin). Then I'd be certain to have an 18/00 Strength, 18 Dexterity, and 18 Constitution by about 5th level.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Storm Raven said:
Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization). One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.
And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.
However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score. It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.
In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters. The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes. It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.
Numion
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
Well, as you said:
Point buy is optional in 3.0E (3.0E DMG, p. 19 "Here are eight optional variants you might want to consider.."). So there's no guaranteed 18's.. Maybe it's standard in 3.5E, though.
I'm a 3.0 grognard. I already feel rose colored shades blurring my vision a bit ..
Raven Crowking
First Post
Numion said:
Not so far as I know.
And, you're right....optional things shouldn't be considered to determine how "munchkinny" a game system is. My argument, though, was that the arguments about UA material cut both ways. The odds against getting a game-breaking character, using only the standard rules and not cheating, is a lot slimmer using the UA than many folks believe.
A lot of the things people complain about in the UA (barbarian, incremental stat increase, for example) were dropped in 2e and put back into 3e....in some cases, made more univeral. The implementation of the book might leave something to be desired, but the basic ideas behind it weren't that terrible.
Nothing on this thread has convinced me that Gary is or was a munchkin. I am, however, convinced that Gary had a sense of humour about himself.
IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.
RC
Doug McCrae
Legend
In 3.5, 4d6-1 is the default. It's the only method mentioned in the PHB. There are eight options in the DMG, the first of which, the Standard Point Buy, is 25 pts. Nonstandard Point Buy, the 2nd option, ranges from 15 to 32 pts. Five of the remaining six methods are dice rolling variations.
In my game I gave players the option of 28pt buy or 4d6-1. Very recently I've noticed the same problem with rolling Gygax mentions, players will just suicide if the rolls aren't good enough, so I'm thinking of switching to compulsory point buy next campaign.
In my game I gave players the option of 28pt buy or 4d6-1. Very recently I've noticed the same problem with rolling Gygax mentions, players will just suicide if the rolls aren't good enough, so I'm thinking of switching to compulsory point buy next campaign.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Raven Crowking said:
But that doesn't track. How often something is used in no way relates to how munchkinny it is. That's like saying Pun Pun is not munchkinny because it's never been used in an actual campaign (to my knowledge). The fact that it relies on numerous optional rules, and some shady interpretations apparently doesn't enter into the equation.
As far as generating high stats, while it isn't 9d6 for every stat, it is 9d6, then 8d6 then 7d6 all the way down to 3d6 (usually for Cha). The odds are pretty bloody high that your fighter is going to have an 18 str, 18 Con and 18 Dex (or very close to it) using that method.
I'm still failing to understand how "number of times used" has anything to do with how munchkinny something is. Just because it's not used doesn't make it any less munchkin.
Similar Threads
