Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mal20 10-05-04, 07:37 AM	Hello all. A lot of people say that characters excessively multiclassing is cheesy, and not within the spirit of the game. I'm inclined to think that a reasonable character storyline overcomes this, so I'd like to run a character development idea past you guys, to give it the 'cheeseometer' test if you will. The character, a Wood Elf by birth and currently a Rogue 2/Ranger 1/Fighter2, was raised in a Human city and began as a Rogue. At third level he made contact with some Wood Elves and spent months learning ‘the ways of his people’ and took a level of Ranger. We then had an extended dungeon adventure involving lots of fighting and not much else, so I felt justified (the DM agreed) in taking two levels of Fighter. Now, in the downtime between adventures, this character is going to be initiated into the Elven tribe, at which point the DM has agreed to have him found to be a suitable candidate for a prestigious and exclusive order of Elven warriors (Eldritch Knight). Initially he will be a squire, and the majority of his training will be in the arcane magic the order uses – represented by the level of Wizard. As I said, eventually he will become an Eldritch Knight. Now that works out as five classes in the end, and things like the one level dip into Ranger, while obviously very beneficial numbers/feats-wise, are completely justifiable story-wise in my opinion. What do you think, is this munchkinism, and does it matter as long as the story fits together reasonably?
aleshandre 10-05-04, 11:09 AM	Okay, first I want to say that I think munchkinism is never justified. I was once a total munchkin and loved having the most powerful character that I could think of. Then I played the WEG D6 StarWars and realized that any character can be the most powerful if played right. Since then I am more interested in developing the character than in the stats, but I don't develop any character without a clear idea what kind of abilities they will have, so the result is often a multiclassed character (except when multiclassing doesn't make sense with the history of the character). In the case of your character, all of the multiclassing is justified by the history of the character, so in my opinion, it does not qualify as munchkin. I feel that if people took a serious look at their own abilities, they will see that they did the same kind of thing with their skills and talents. Something that they were never interested in before suddenly becomes interesting, so they set out to learn it, even though it doesn't fit with their personal "character concept" for themselves. An example is that I have never been interested in becoming a real "warrior", but I joined the Army and learned alot about tactics and combat. Now I am back to what I was planning before and getting a degree in computers.
necrosnoop110 10-05-04, 12:21 PM	Yes there is Munchkin-ism: Munchkin-ism: The act of creating the most powerful character possible above and beyond the normal standards of reasonableness, decency, honesty, and fair play. Munchkin-ism typically develops from the desire to satisfy, the often immature, ego needs of the player. A strong character is not a requirement of a good game. But most people forget about its opposite: Petite-ism: The act of creating the weakest character possible with the most flaws. Petite-ism typically develops from the desire to role-play well. What most who are inflicted with Petite-ism misunderstand is that good role-playing is separate from and can happen regardless of the power level of the individual character. A weak character is not a requirement of good role-playing. I think the extremes of both Munchkin-ism and Petite-ism are unnecessary just adjust your character to the appropriate power level of your gaming group. As to your specific question I do not think your character build is any way a munchkin. The number of classes and PrCs do not necessarily measure the munchkin – abusive combinations and the general neglect of the power curve for your given gaming group is what makes a munchkin. Necro
eudas 10-05-04, 12:39 PM	1. 3.0 or 3.5? 2. Looks fine to me as far as your in-game justifications for various classes. I've certainly seen a lot worse. :) 3. Rogue2/Ranger1/Fighter2/Wizard1/Eldritch Knight X will still likely result in a slightly weak character (well, weaker than it might otherwise have been), though you've picked decent exit points for the various classes. Just make sure you fill the prereq's for EK and you'll be fine. 4. Enjoy the char. Looks like you're building him the way you want to. eudas
Lady Danyon Dehlmari 10-05-04, 12:47 PM	does it matter as long as the story fits together reasonably? In my opinion as long as the story is good and you're not "forcing" the build into the story or vice-versa- I think it's fine. I see no problem with it as long as both are working together. After all, many legends and stories have characters that could indeed be considered "munchkins", yet they are the stories/legends we love reading. ~Danyon
TheMightyMcClaw 10-05-04, 10:55 PM	Keep in mind, multiclassing and munching are not one in the same. Often, single-classed munches (such as the classic Orc barbarian with 22 Str and 6 int) I find are the hardest to deal with. They overshadow the rest of the party in one thing (usually combat) and then are completely incompotent at everything else. Multiclassed characters tend to be more versatile than specialized (imagine that?). They don't kick over the rest of the party in combat, and they can serve multiple purposes outside of it.
Trydan 10-06-04, 04:42 AM	I don't see much of a problem with multiclassing as given in the original post. It fits a story, and the diversity seems appropriate. Additionally, there is only a single Prestige Class (PrC). The problem usually starts when multiple PrCs or specialised core classes (e.g. Paladin) get used. These become nearly impossible to justify, in the spirit of those classes. However, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Ranger are all fairly generic, and suit the character described here. Then, as long as the character doesn't unbalance the party, by being too powerful or too weak, then it should be a welcome addition in any game.
Jeefit the meephit 10-07-04, 07:41 PM	I thin it can. Here's why; D&D is a game, it's about having fun. If you have more fun with hack and slash and it doesn't disrupt the group then even the thinnest of backgrounds hold firm. Any character can have a history that is rich and well developed because when you paint on the canvas of your imagination you have the debug mode on you can set up whatever you want. So you can justify anything. Because you have this power to develop what you want it, there is no need to justify. But, at the same time it's a social game. You have a responsibiilty to the other players to let them have some fun to. If you make a really powerful character, you may as well act it especially if it turns out fun for everyone (not grandstanding, but boasting is fine, and maybe now and then showing off to random townsfolk, heck it can go a long way to group PR with a "real hero" showing off.) But what I am saying is you may have 1 billion damage capability, so what... How does that influence your character? Is he afraid of his power? Does he revel in it? Is he just a shjow off? Does he help the group in real time of need? Is he nameless from Hero? Just because a character is powerful doesn't mean that they have no character or just because the numbers work doesn't leave him without a soul. As long as the group enjoys the flavor there is no issue. Just enjoy him, and if he needs to retire, retire him. _jeff
Endarire 10-07-04, 11:45 PM	From what I know so far, the class combo seems justified. Now, you'll need third level arcane casting ability to become an EK, which is quite a ways off. Your multiclassing will, statistically, make you significantly weaker than a purpose-built rogue, fighter, ranger, rogue/fighter/ranger, or EK, but you can do more. -EE
Mal20 10-08-04, 08:46 AM	Yeah, I know he's no where near 'optimised', but I think I'd enjoy playing him. Itd be cool to be able to do a little bit of everything.
Endarire 10-08-04, 02:11 PM	Others agree that people use terms like 'munchkin' too freely. You'd probably be called one, and rightly so, if you made a Hulking Hurler that could destroy the Earth in one shot. If someone is making a build contrary to his character's persona without adequate justification, such as a devout good Wizard who spontaneously starts killing people to become evil with the player wanting him to become an Ur-Priest, there would be a significant issue. The way d20's class sytem works largely requires multiclassing to have mechanics fit niche builds, like the Swashbuckler pre-CW. -EE
Votan 10-08-04, 02:42 PM	Hello all. A lot of people say that characters excessively multiclassing is cheesy, and not within the spirit of the game. I'm inclined to think that a reasonable character storyline overcomes this, so I'd like to run a character development idea past you guys, to give it the 'cheeseometer' test if you will. The character, a Wood Elf by birth and currently a Rogue 2/Ranger 1/Fighter2, was raised in a Human city and began as a Rogue. At third level he made contact with some Wood Elves and spent months learning ‘the ways of his people’ and took a level of Ranger. We then had an extended dungeon adventure involving lots of fighting and not much else, so I felt justified (the DM agreed) in taking two levels of Fighter. I think that the issue with cheese is almost entirely with people who take too many prestige classes. Prestige classes, as opposed to core classes, often give special bonuses that are hard to balance. In addition, they have rarely been tested in combination with other prestige class (especially in cases where each class comes from a completely different campaign setting). But I have never had an issue with anybody who takes multiple core classes and a maximum of one prestige class. It is very hard to create dominant characters that way and the diversity of multi-classing actually fits many character concepts better as far as I can tell.