Munchkins?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

btw, in that same adventure was a guy who played a Sorcerer with about 3 Prestige classes so that his base save DCs for his spells was a 28 for 1st level spells.

It is strictly up to the DM to allow prestige classes, as stated clearly in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Originally posted by Roland Delacroix
This is EXACTLY why I play with point buy. It doesnt solve all the problems but it helps alot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How does this solve anything? According to the above post they could have been using point buy as attribute genreation was never mentioned.

It depends on your definition of munchkin. I wouldn't consider dice rolling munchkin, but I do consider it unfair and unbalanced.

The game isn't fun when someone gets all high stats and the next person gets all low stats. The entire point of the game is to have fun.

Second, if you're using 4d6 drop the lowest or whatever system, it isn't the 28 point buy claimed in the DMG. It may start there, but characters who rolled low die off, bumping the average. New characters with low stats die again, and if they come back with high stats they get to live.

Then the DM has to make encounters harder, since his PCs are tougher, and this weeds out the low-stat characters yet again.

However, this discussion is only tangential to munchkinism.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Precisely how did you fail to make a powerful character if you were starting at 16th level, presumably with the recommended PC wealth?

The other players weren't being munchkins (I can think of a way to get save DC's to 26 without a single prestige class off the top of my head) - it just sounds like your character was terrible. Stats well over 20 are commonplace at 16th level. 30's are pretty exceptional, but still possible and likely. I would expect almost every caster at that level to be wearing an item which boosted their primary casting stat at that level for instance.

If you spent all your cash on skill boosting, and then spread your bonus attribute points out over all of your stats (I assume) what the hell did you expect?

It sounds like your character did exactly what you built it to do, and did it bettern than the rest of your party. You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like you're a munchkin (at least going by your own definition of the term).

 

[Jeremy]

I agree. Even most 16th level NPC's have a stat in the 20's.

I don't think it's so much a problem with a munchkin player in that group, but an unfamiliarity with high level play.

If you had say started at 1st level and worked to 16th, the increase in power would have been much more gradual and would have made more sense. Jumping into a 16th game expecting 6th level play is a commonly made mistake.

Low level play and mid level play go by different rules but are basically the same game. High level play is an entirely different animal with totally different rules.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I hate point buy. I see no reason why not allowing everyone to roll using the same method is any less fair. I see no reason to penalize a person for being lucky with some dice. You just have to watch out for the cheaters.

Personally, munchkin is an overused term by people who like to play to play grittier fantasy games.

I know many folks on this board would think of my gaming groups characters as munchkin. We have high stats and play alot of prestige classes.

Yet, we still put a heavy emphasis on roleplaying. It just so happens that I am a stat hound. If I dont' have high stats, then I don't feel like I am playing a heroic type of character in the same mold as the heroes I enjoy in books.

That is not to say that there are not heroes with low stats like Frodo or others. I prefer to play heroes in the same mold as Aragorn (High stats up and down I would bet.), King Arthur, Launcelot, Gandalf, Merlin, and others along those lines. I am not a Frodo type of player, and the only way to balance this out fairly is to allow the other members of the gaming group to roll in a way that grants them high stats as well.

This doesn't seem to bother anyone, so I see no reason why we should choose to play another way. We also make sure to modify our enemies as well so they have equally good stats. That basically makes it so that our PC's and our NPC's have excellent stats.

I would imagine to some people, our characters would be considered munchkin, but to others, much to my surprise, we are quite weak. The main reason is because we don't hand out much magic. Magic items seem to lead to a greater imbalance than high stats in my experience.

We tend to keep the campaign magic low because we have had serious problems with overpowering magic items causing our campaigns to crash and burn.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

BTW, yes, one munchkin will ruin it for the rest. It is very difficult to enjoy the game when one player is killing everything single-handedly.

 

[Marius]

I don't consider min/maxing munchkining. I think reading so far in the letter of the written rules so as to change the spirit is munchkining, otherwise its just gaming with a heavy emphasis on combat ability. That having been said, it is up to the DM to smack down a person if they are wreaking havoc on the campaign, either in game, or unfortunately, sometimes out of.

 

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re

I hate point buy. I see no reason why not allowing everyone to roll using the same method is any less fair. I see no reason to penalize a person for being lucky with some dice. You just have to watch out for the cheaters.

Personally, munchkin is an overused term by people who like to play to play grittier fantasy games.

I know many folks on this board would think of my gaming groups characters as munchkin. We have high stats and play alot of prestige classes.

Yet, we still put a heavy emphasis on roleplaying. It just so happens that I am a stat hound. If I dont' have high stats, then I don't feel like I am playing a heroic type of character in the same mold as the heroes I enjoy in books.

That is not to say that there are not heroes with low stats like Frodo or others. I prefer to play heroes in the same mold as Aragorn (High stats up and down I would bet.), King Arthur, Launcelot, Gandalf, Merlin, and others along those lines. I am not a Frodo type of player, and the only way to balance this out fairly is to allow the other members of the gaming group to roll in a way that grants them high stats as well.

This doesn't seem to bother anyone, so I see no reason why we should choose to play another way. We also make sure to modify our enemies as well so they have equally good stats. That basically makes it so that our PC's and our NPC's have excellent stats.

I would imagine to some people, our characters would be considered munchkin, but to others, much to my surprise, we are quite weak. The main reason is because we don't hand out much magic. Magic items seem to lead to a greater imbalance than high stats in my experience.

We tend to keep the campaign magic low because we have had serious problems with overpowering magic items causing our campaigns to crash and burn.

I hate rolling, since I see no reason to punish a player for rolling low.

Personally, munchkin is, in my book, a player that minmaxes his PC without a care for the fun of others, is out to have the most powerful PC however he defines it, and ruins their enjoyment of the game for the whole group.

As far as high stats go, those alone are no indication in my book for a munchkin. If the player wants higher stats than the rest of the group, then he is a munchkin, or playing with the wrong group.

And at this point I have to say that stats are relative. If no one else (NPC) has a stat over 16 then 18 is a heroic, high stat fitting for Aragorn or any other famous character. If every NPC has at least one 17+ then 18 is not particulalry "heroic".

As an example, in my first Shadowrun campaign, a 6 in a skill was average, and a 12 or better was good to very good. In my second campaign a 3 is average, and a 4 or 5 is good - 6 is very, very good. So a goon in the first campaign would be an elite operative/killing machine/genius in the second campaign if he had the same stats.

So, stats alone don't make anyone heroic/munchkin - it depends on the enviroment and the difference between the stats of the PC in question and the stats of the rest of the world.

As far as magic is concerned, I tend to agree. Nothing worse than an abundance of magic items to make a high-level campaign crash due to DM fatigue, at least in my experience.

 

[Archer]

Look in the DMG under the iconic NPCs. I'd consider those stats to be the basement of an effective character. If you can't even match up to NPC stats then your character is a failure at his chosen profession. PC's should be about 20% higher than the NPC listed there based on specialization and superior equipment.

If your character is weak, you can make up some of the difference by taking up to 10 extra levels to compensate. Its possible to have a 26th level villian, poorly constructed, be defeated by a decent 10th level party. A 20th level bard might be the equal of an 11th level wizard or fighter, especially with bad equipment and stat placement plus wide skill spread (except for perform)

Magic items are easily 50% of the power of a character. A 6th level character and a 20th level character switch gear, the 6th level character wins in a fight. (Not for full spellcasters who carrying their "gear" within them)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I played in a one shot 16th level adventure and I had (have as I still like him) a Rogue, single classed. My highest attribute, with adjustments, was an 18 DEX. I don't think I hadn't anything less than 12 but I only had two above 16.

Some of the guys who played had attributes in the high 20s and low 30s!

Hm... I think there are two extremes here: stats as seen in a low-magic, low-power campaign, and stats in a high-magic, high-power campagin.

Normally, your rogue will start with 16 Dex. Until 16th, you'll have 4 Ability increases, two of which you'll devote to Dex, in the least. So you'll have 18 Dex natural. That's for a human rogue in a low-powered campaign.

If you devote all the boosts into Dex, you'll have Dex 20 at 16th. Then, you may be lucky and have an 18 in the rolls, putting it up to 22. An Elf or halfling rogue will then have 24. If we assume you have not overly limited access to magic items and treasure, you'll have a +6 Item until then, pushing it to 30. There. Even with only a 16 as stat and only the +4 item, you'll have 26.

I think stuff between 24 and 30 is the normal thing for your Dex for a single-classed rogue, assuming the guidelines from DM concerning magic items, and a little focus on Dex.

More than 30, on the other hand, may be hard: By the rules, you'll need either Races with more than +2 to Dex or Wish spells or the Manuals to get an inherent bonus. The +2 can be had vor around 55.000gp. Epic Items with more than +6 should not be available here.

 

[evildmguy]

Munchkin - an "evil" word?

Greetings!

Good discussion all! Thanks!

btw, yes, I may have put it in the wrong area. I wasn't thinking when I hit New Topic. If it gets bumped, that's fine.

BTW, yes, one munchkin will ruin it for the rest. It is very difficult to enjoy the game when one player is killing everything single-handedly.

In the end, this was my point. I will try and clarify it a bit more but that was my point.

Perhaps I have a secondary point. The DM, in looking at our characters, probably should have either pointed this out to me, so I, and a few others like me, would have known it.

Having said that, I don't find min/maxing bad, we probably do that in life. I think that we, as people, play to our strengths and try and minimize our weak areas. I did do some min/maxing of the character. As a rogue, he had very good move silently and hide skill checks. Doubtful that anyone but a rogue or ranger with high spots or listens could have heard him. I just didn't take it to the extreme.

I just think that this player took it to the extreme, perhaps too far.

Perhaps this is me pointing out what is "legal". Since the d20 rules allow this, five people all created radically different characters, possibly at different power levels. For example, the Sorcerer that I was talking about, my rogue was the only one in the group who had a chance (and it was < 15%) of making any Relfex saves that Sorcerer character would impose. Does that still mean that two 16th level characters are equal? Which is "right"?

In this case, does that mean that players should "patrol" themselves more? I agree that since the DM allowed it, it stands. My point is, I also think that the DM should understand what that means for the other characters and either disallow the "extreme" min maxed character or let the rest of us know.

I hate rolling, since I see no reason to punish a player for rolling low.

I agree with this 100%. I usually give my players numbers for attributes and let them use them. That way, before racial adjustments, they are the same.

As far as high stats go, those alone are no indication in my book for a munchkin. If the player wants higher stats than the rest of the group, then he is a munchkin, or playing with the wrong group.

And at this point I have to say that stats are relative. If no one else (NPC) has a stat over 16 then 18 is a heroic, high stat fitting for Aragorn or any other famous character. If every NPC has at least one 17+ then 18 is not particulalry "heroic".

As an example, in my first Shadowrun campaign, a 6 in a skill was average, and a 12 or better was good to very good. In my second campaign a 3 is average, and a 4 or 5 is good - 6 is very, very good. So a goon in the first campaign would be an elite operative/killing machine/genius in the second campaign if he had the same stats.

So, stats alone don't make anyone heroic/munchkin - it depends on the enviroment and the difference between the stats of the PC in question and the stats of the rest of the world.

Okay, I partially disagree here. In the sense that I think most systems define an average attribute as well as average skill for a professional, I think that the adventure and adversaries can, in a relativistic fashion, make a character seem "average". Yet, when compared to the baseline, they are obviously very good.

So, yes, a person who ends up with the "average" of 6 in skills seems to do no better than anyone else. Yet, when compared to the baseline of 2, they are very good.

In other words, in a world full of Supermen, it is Bicycle Repair Man that stands out!

Magic items are easily 50% of the power of a character. A 6th level character and a 20th level character switch gear, the 6th level character wins in a fight. (Not for full spellcasters who carrying their "gear" within them)

I completely agree that DND (can't decide if this can be said about d20 games) puts as much OR MORE emphasis on the items a character has besides the classes they have. I personally don't like it but it is part of the system.

As for the rest of Archer's comments, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Precisely how did you fail to make a powerful character if you were starting at 16th level, presumably with the recommended PC wealth?

The other players weren't being munchkins (I can think of a way to get save DC's to 26 without a single prestige class off the top of my head) - it just sounds like your character was terrible. Stats well over 20 are commonplace at 16th level. 30's are pretty exceptional, but still possible and likely. I would expect almost every caster at that level to be wearing an item which boosted their primary casting stat at that level for instance.

I am not trying to comment on *your* style. I think that what you have posted above are comments on a type of style that does exist.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this style of play. I know that players find it quite fun and I try to give them that as a DM. I also try to keep them as "even" as I can in abilities.

I do think, though, that most of the above comments are subjective. If that's your experience, okay. My mileage has varied. I have seen games where 15th level people have no attribute higher than 18, with most in the 10 - 12 range. (That started at 1st level, btw.) I have also seen games where 12th level people have no less than 13s and a few 20s or more. (again, 1st level)

There is nothing wrong with any of it. The game is about having fun and people did, that's all there is to it.

My point, though, again is that one person who doesn't fit into the relativistic "average", seems to "imbalance" the game. It isn't necessarily bad. Again, perhaps my point is more that it is too bad that the game rules allow two "equal" level characters to be radically different.

If you spent all your cash on skill boosting, and then spread your bonus attribute points out over all of your stats (I assume) what the hell did you expect?

It sounds like your character did exactly what you built it to do, and did it bettern than the rest of your party. You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like you're a munchkin (at least going by your own definition of the term).

I won't completely argue except to say, yes I did min/max in what I thought were the characters strengths. I think the difference in my character is that I like having characters with fatal flaws, or at least weaknesses. Perhaps that just makes me rare.

Thanks to all those who replied!

Perhaps, I should refine my questions after the responses.

Is it the DMs duty to make sure that all characters are "equal" within class, race and item scope? Or are all characters automatically "equal" since they all had the same choice?

Is extreme min/maxing bad? Is that something players should avoid, even though the rules allow it?

Again, I am not trying to attack anyone. I also don't feel defensive about anything that was said in response to me. I am just curious as to what other people's thoughts and experiences on this topic are.

Thanks!

edg