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