How would you respond to someone like this?

[jdrakeh]

Aha. Since I've got no reason to go there, I did not know this. Might be interesting to go back sometime, then.

Possibly. For me, I've found it more productive to simply read the forums there without registering to post. But enough fo my dragging the thread off-topic...

To reply to the original poster, I think that Jim gave good advice - leave it alone. A heated response to such ignorance will only create a flamewar, and one that you'll be just as responsible for as they guy who posted that garbage. So, will replying in kind benefit you? No. Will it rightfully get you banned? Probably. I'd just report the post as a violation of Rule 4, and let the mods take care of it.

 

[Greg K]

I'd tell them that it is easy to not include the spiked chains or other equipment that they do not like. For instance, I strongly dislike many of the new 3e monsters and equipment introduced in 3e. Among the things you will not find in my game are spiked chains, orgoshs, riding dogs and most of the alchemical equipment. The lack of these things hasn't been a problem.

 

[The Shaman]

The nature of 3E with its clearly defined maths do allow for character optimization better than many other systems.

Well-said.

"Munchkin" doesn't mean the same thing as it did back in the day of 1e. In a game where a fighter was a fighter was a fighter, at least in terms of game mechanics, there wasn't a whole lot of "optimization" going on - it was more about the "Christmas tree" approach to magic items and some dubious stat generation methods, which interestingly enough are both still problems today, but now we have an array of feats (potentially a vast array, depending on the number of supplements available to the players) with synergies which really create the "optimization" issue.

My answer is, that any game is a roleplaying game if the players choose to make it so. A player put off by optimal "builds" should focus on creating a character concept first, then adding in the mechanics that fit that concept, rather worrying about whether or not her/his character is the best dagger thrower in all The Land (unless that is the character concept!).

 

[WayneLigon]

You're simply going to get arguements like that with any system that allows players to take and combine various options. There will always be combinations of options that are 'more equal than others'. Always.

I'd find out what the basher considers to be 'an RPG', myself. If it's some very rules-lite game (or 'optionless' game, like AD&D 1E), then guess what? You can optomize those as well. In fact, it's even easier to do so because the only 'brakes' on various abilities and combinations is what the GM will allow you.

Munchkinism and power-building didn't originate with 3E. It had a long and colorful history for the full twenty-something years before that. House rules and special clauses for certain characters and third party abilities and rules systems all combined can create some truly amazing and horendous 'builds' in basic D&D, 1E, 2E and any other game system you care to name.

 

[ForceUser]

It's fun to create focused characters, but too much focus is going to bite you in the end. A good dm is going to *deliberately* put you in awkward spots [on occasion--Force] if you insist on doing this.

Quoted for truth.

No game system can evade min-maxing. Where there are games with rules, there are min-maxers. I've heard plenty of power-gamer stories about 1E characters--I mean, raise your hand if you've listened to a 1E gamer talk about how his group killed Thor/Tiamat/Hastur/[insert deity/pantheon here], or kicked butt all the way down to the 9th layer of Hell. I rarely hear such stories in 3E. How is building a spiked chain fighter in 3E any worse?

 

[Hammerhead]

First of all, this guy is a loser. EVERYONE knows you don't start with Improved Trip at 1st level; using a two handed weapon with high Strength, you'll kill everything in one hit anyways. Take Combat Reflexes at 1st level instead, or Weapon Focus. Second, if you have the INT for it, go Half Orc. The increase to Strength will increase your damage and the effectiveness of your tripping attacks. You also want to make sure to pick up ranks in Craft Weapon, so you can take Exotic Weapon Master for more reach/tripping/spiked chain goodness. You also need ot make sure to get Weapon Specialization to increase damage, for the monsters you can't trip. And it's much better to get a heavily enchanted chain than a few minor ones, especially if you put a Tripping or Disarming Enhancement onto it. I'd also recommend the Mage Slayer feat to really nerf those spellcasters and to boost your Will save.

What a moron.

 

[The Shaman]

Munchkinism and power-building didn't originate with 3E. It had a long and colorful history for the full twenty-something years before that. House rules and special clauses for certain characters and third party abilities and rules systems all combined can create some truly amazing and horendous 'builds' in basic D&D, 1E, 2E and any other game system you care to name.

Wow, silly me for just using the core books, I guess - I never encountered anything like this when we played...

 

[scourger]

Enjoy the game you've got. A group of devout 1e players probably won't enjoy your 3e game, I'm sorry to say. Even if they do play it, you'll suffer the slings & arrows of endless unfavorable comparisons between editions. It happened in our group to an extent, and we pretty much embraced d20. The best you can do is offer to run 3.x for them. If they don't go for it, then it's their loss. It's a lot less work on you to be a player, anyway; so I say just enjoy it. You'll likely have an opporuntity to run a d20 D&D game for a bunch of spiked-chain fighters soon enough.