equalled or exceeded
I chose the last option, and I was surprised to see so many other votes for it as well. I find nothing wrong with a little min/maxing. I even read somewhere that a little bit of it is good and shows a player is interested in the character. Editions prior to 3.0 were just less balanced as I recall. As noted above, certain initial choices were better; at least in the front-end of character's life which was where most games (that I played) ended anyway.
Even in basic D&D, I don't remember a lot of humans for one reason: no infravision. For a game mostly about dungeon crawling, the ability to see in the dark is very significant.
In addition to infravision, 1e saw the debut of the elf as the favored race of D&D.
2e continued these ideas, but I only found it manageable when restricted to its core. The problem I had with munchkinism in 2e was with the brown books, starting with The Complete Fighter's Handbook. The options for player characters piled on, but the foes were not similarly advanced in power. The whole Player's Option, Skills & Tactics, etc. series pushed the envelope even farther. Thankfully, I rarely played and never DMed the game using those books. A core 2e game is great for running printed adventures.
3.0 is much more balanced. Choosing one thing for a character means foregoing something else, and the foes get the same choices as the heroes. Even so, I kept the game restricted as much to its core as possible. All the players need is the PHB. I found nothing that I wanted to change, and I did not feel the need to add anything for a core fantasy game. I did enjoy playing d20 games in other, non-sword-&-sorcery fantasy genres, but kept them to their core books also.
3.5 is basically as good for me as 3.0. I don't like some of the changes. I find myself trying to make certain things in 3.5 work like they did in 3.0 (like DR), but I do play it and DM it.
I chose the last option, and I was surprised to see so many other votes for it as well. I find nothing wrong with a little min/maxing. I even read somewhere that a little bit of it is good and shows a player is interested in the character. Editions prior to 3.0 were just less balanced as I recall. As noted above, certain initial choices were better; at least in the front-end of character's life which was where most games (that I played) ended anyway.
Even in basic D&D, I don't remember a lot of humans for one reason: no infravision. For a game mostly about dungeon crawling, the ability to see in the dark is very significant.
In addition to infravision, 1e saw the debut of the elf as the favored race of D&D.
2e continued these ideas, but I only found it manageable when restricted to its core. The problem I had with munchkinism in 2e was with the brown books, starting with The Complete Fighter's Handbook. The options for player characters piled on, but the foes were not similarly advanced in power. The whole Player's Option, Skills & Tactics, etc. series pushed the envelope even farther. Thankfully, I rarely played and never DMed the game using those books. A core 2e game is great for running printed adventures.
3.0 is much more balanced. Choosing one thing for a character means foregoing something else, and the foes get the same choices as the heroes. Even so, I kept the game restricted as much to its core as possible. All the players need is the PHB. I found nothing that I wanted to change, and I did not feel the need to add anything for a core fantasy game. I did enjoy playing d20 games in other, non-sword-&-sorcery fantasy genres, but kept them to their core books also.
3.5 is basically as good for me as 3.0. I don't like some of the changes. I find myself trying to make certain things in 3.5 work like they did in 3.0 (like DR), but I do play it and DM it.
