Computers beat up my role player - Page 8
Page 8 of 57 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 564
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar
    There was no previous limit in 3e to raise. 2e and 1e had level limits, but, those are different games.
    Different games, or sequential editions of the same game?

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Round Hill, Virginia
    Posts
    4,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    D'oh! That's what I get for not paying attention to what the hell I am saying. You're right, I need to use my point buy to get an 18 Strength and a 15 Dexterity. Then I make sure to be a half-orc, to boost that up to 20. I use a light off-hand weapon and select the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I now attack with both weapons with a +1 BAB, +5 bonus for Strength, and -2 penalty for two weapons....+4/+4.

    Where the 1e fighter might really show me up is at 10th level, where he's getting to kill 10 orcs a round....but even with Great Cleave no more than 9 orcs can surround me in 3e.
    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.

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Raven
    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.
    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?

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    1,369
    For some reason i don't recall double weapon specialization being available at first level are you quite certain on that?

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Round Hill, Virginia
    Posts
    4,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    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%.
    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.

  6. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Raven
    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.
    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.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halden, Norway
    Posts
    4,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    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%?
    Well, as you said:

    No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm.
    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 ..

  8. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Numion
    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.
    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

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    6,214
    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.
    Last edited by Doug McCrae; Tuesday, 17th July, 2007 at 11:37 PM.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fukuoka, Japan
    Posts
    21,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
    Something that is optional is less likely to be used than something that is not. Moreover, something that is optional is more likely to be examined for desireability than something that is not.
    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.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Are you a good role player?
    By Crothian in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Friday, 1st April, 2005, 09:26 PM
  2. Are you a Roll-Player or a Role-player?
    By Mista Collins in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Wednesday, 13th August, 2003, 12:15 PM
  3. Roll Player -> Role Player .. hopefully
    By Ave Rage in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Sunday, 13th April, 2003, 07:24 AM
  4. What are you? Powergamer or role-player?
    By Eternalknight in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Tuesday, 4th June, 2002, 02:44 AM
  5. How deep is the Division? Roll Player & Role Player
    By Valicor in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Thursday, 9th May, 2002, 06:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •