I've been mulling over a character concept for a few weeks now and finally decided to crunch some numbers and refine the concept. A warlock of the fiend. With a polearm. And polearm master. And Repelling Blast. Cool.
I avoid charop builds and forum discussions on combinations but I made the error of looking for some information on whether pushing a target beyond the reach of the polearm would provoke and... it's already considered a munchkin build.
Great. Now if I go anywhere near a game with this character everyone will automatically assume that I'm just using charop builds to munchkin out. Nevermind that I came up with the concept by myself. Nevermind that I have an entire backstory for the character and personality all developed and a kickass picture for him. Nooooooo, now it's basically an unplayable character for me.
Thanks charoppers. Thanks a lot.
Thank_Dog wrote:
It's the people who have a weird issue with players building effective characters that you have to "thank" for your "problem."
So, learn to fly under the radar of the Powergaming Police:
- Be consistent with your established characterization.
- If you can manage an accent, do it. They'll think you're an amazing roleplayer.
- Stay out of the spotlight by backing another player's idea and then adding to it to make it more effective (rather than be first with ideas and actions).
- Occasionally choose to suck out loud at the game when it won't cost you much and then say that doing so was because of your traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws. (It might even get you Inspiration.)
- Engage with the DM's quirky, cagey NPCs as if they're the coolest people in the world even if they're boring stonewallers that are dead weight in the scene, but again, don't take too much spotlight.
- From time to time say "my character wouldn't do that" so that another player can "roleplay" with you to convince you to play the game. Relent so they feel like a good roleplayer for having convinced you and do it quickly so that not too much game time is wasted.
These are tried and true methods. Do these things and nobody will think you're a "powergamer" (even if your character is optimized as hell).
iserith wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
If I was in your situation, I wouldn't worry about it. If a group is making snap judgements about me as a person based on my character build, I probably wouldn't want to play with jerks like that anyway.
I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with being a dirty dirty munchkin.
Well, this is just my opinion, but you created the character with honest and clear intentions because you liked the build and 'features', not to be a munchkin. If anyone else does not like it, then I say let them stuff their opinion in an especially uncomfortable "place". 
It is your character, you liked it, and that is all that matters. 
You can prove you made it yourself by editing one of your guides.
At least that what i did. 
mellored wrote:
iserith wrote:
Sorry, it was poor wording. I'm tired and fluey and not thinking straight.
You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
MechaPilot wrote:
Thank_Dog, don't worry about the community at large. You can't please everyone, some people have axes to grind and will find fault with you no matter what you do. Nod at them and move on. Find the folks who will welcome you and root for your success as a member of the party, and hopefully, as a friend. You are doing nothing wrong or horribly unbalancing right? So be secure in this, and don't worry about the judgments of others. Your opinion counts just as much as theirs, doesn't it? Don't let yourself withdraw into a defensive shell before even giving people a chance to accept you and welcome you
I'm sorry you're not feeling well today, and wish you healing and health! May you feel better soon!
Gerard_Lee wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
People will derive impressions from anything, but I don't think people can justifiably measure your character without seeing you play it. It's not the build, afterall; it's how one uses one's character that makes one a "munchkin". Your actions prove yourself; no need to act abnormally.
Noon wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
It sad that knowing and playing the game well is considered munchkin.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
ITT: OP plays charop build. Gets laughed at by friends. Proceeds to complain about everyone else playing charop builds.
Stay classy internet.
I usually reply to accusations of being a munchkin with, "Yes, I am smarter than you."
kalil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
kalil wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Don't worry you are not a munchkin, quite the opposite actually, your build doesn't work:
1- Forced movement doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity
2- Polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack.
Kurgag wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kurgag wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Kurgag wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
What would work is taking polearm master and the feat for ranged attacks in melee without disadvantage.
Eldritch blast as main attack with pushing the enemy away on your turn to always get an opportunity attack with your polearm on his turn when he has to come close again.
You could even leave out hungry blade, since you only carry the pact polearm for OAs and not to use the attack action anyway
Of all the polearm master options -- glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff -- only the quarterstaff would be usable by someone who wants to cast Eldritch Blast, because its somatic component means you can't have a two-handed weapon equipped, right?
Edit: I just realized that this discussion presumes the War Caster feat, which would make this moot.
Mirtek wrote:
The real question is this.
If war caster allows you to cast a spell as an opportunity attack (presumably by channeling the spell through your weapon), why couldn't the same thing be done be a Polearm Master?
Pushing them back and forceing them to eat an AO from the polearm every time they want to close again isn't a bad combo either.
paulstrait wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
You used the term "build" to describe your character. Guilty as charged. Next?
Gnarl wrote:
If people you're playing with make these assumptions about you based on how you build your character, perhaps they're not the sort of people you want to really be playing with. I certainly don't think it's appropriate for myself or anyone at my table to make judgement calls or assumptions about someone else just because he make a strong and mechanically useful character. Just as I wouldn't deride someone at the table for playing a mechanically sub-par character (nor would I consider them a better role-player for it either).
Just because you are not good at charop doesn't mean you're not a munchkin.
Wuzzard wrote:
DnD works on a common aggrement between players and the DM.
When you insist to play your interpretation of a silly OP combo, you play it against your pals around the table.
If you really want to " beat the game" play Magic or on line games.
Pangur wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
I'm assuming that this is the first in a series of humor posts where the OP, Thank_Dog, 'thanks' a portion of the community for some non-existent slight.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
The only offense I take in this discussion, has been the repeated mischaracterization of power-gaming to munchkinism. That's going too far! You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Shame!
Thank_Dog wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
ChaplingMcGuilicutty wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
I didn't say hitting wasn't important in 5e. It obviously is. But the gap between unoptimized and optimized was much more in 4e. Pick the wrong power in 4e? Hopelessly gimped character, until you got to retrain next level to correct your snafu.
Single hits also did way more damage in 4e from the glut of static modifiers on each hit. A +1 to hit thus meant more in 4e.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
And then there's the optimization that went beyond just to-hit bonuses. Like power selection. If you were a Striker who didn't take multi-hit powers? Useless. A Leader who didn't trigger extra attacks? Useless. A Paladin or Swordmage picking the wrong powers? Useless as a Defender.
And that was the real problem with 4e as you played more of it. There were certain powers at each level that were so much better than the rest at that level that all those other "options" were in fact false choices.
Lawolf wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
iserith wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
kimura121 wrote:
iserith wrote:
kalil wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dang, must suck to ask if you can use the rules and then get kicked 
Mirtek wrote:
Kurgag wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SOme people even choose to participate in radbongfun...
Angel7 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gatt wrote:
The problem is when you start putting labels on anyones style of play. Whether they are a munchin, or <insert label here>. At that point the other people at the table are probably bored, and not invested in their characters, versus worrying what is happening with yours. It would be better to embrace the differences at the table to make the game more interesting.
Ahrimon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ahrimon wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
OP,
play your character. Have fun. its a game.
greyhobbit13 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I enjoy magic item creation as it was in 2E, no feats, just research and finding the material components. Normally as a DM, I kept players busy enough to steer them away from things I did not want in my game, like the 2E Staff of the Magi. But I steered them away by having them busy creating other magic items that were central to the story. I don't think I ever gave anyone a staff of the magi or girdles of giant strength, and there were several spells that never entered our games. But I always kept things interesting with other spells. I made finding and/or researching certain spells important for the story. As an old school player I like alot about 5E, but I had to tweak it alot for my own game and setting, forget concentration, and I use many spells as they were in BECMI, 2E, or 3.x. Now when I run our adventure league games, we do that BTB because there is an element of discipline of learning the game and seeing what works and don't work.
Now the home game is played by close friends (my Yrth setting) and is only available to others upon invitation. But when we do our BTB D&D anyone is welcome. We entice other players into our way of playing by playing the game as in the PHB first, then they hear us talking about our other game. If they are curious we joke that we don't use the rules they are familiar with. We get quite a few people who want to try our game that way. Very few do not like it. But I think homebrew adventures by experienced DM's and players are always funner than published adventures made for the masses because we can customize to the likes and dislikes of the people we know.
Ahrimon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
In 4E RAW could you buy items? I know using the disenchant ritual just more or less let you sell magic items anywhere without having to go back to town which at least was a bit of a requirment in 3rd ed and it took longer than a few hours to enchant an item as well as opposed to 4E whch was 8 hours IIRC? Note that I was not a fan of 3rd ed item creation rules but they were at least better IMHO than 4E and Pathfinder. Residium was the same rate you got for selling a magic item in town anyway AFAIK (20%). 4E also had that transfer enchantment ritual as well which got around losing 80% of a magic items value and RAW a wizard could take all those rituals as a class ability.
In 5E we are going to use AD&D magic item rules where the DM does have 100% say over what is avaialble with no rituals or feats being around to say otherwise. Just going to port the enchant an item spell and not use the lose 1 point of con whenever you create a permanent magic item part of the spell.
Otherwise the AD&D rules really require no conversion at all to 5E. Hell you could even keep the -1 con part if you really wanted.
The one part of D&D I really miss is PC making unique magic items and spells. I let a Dwarf cleric research a 1d4 cleric damage spell with a casting time of one that required an attack roll to hit. Said spell was Belfars Forge Spark and it was used to interrupt enemy spell casters as it was hard to find cleric spells with a casting time of 1. That players face broke into a grin in future sessions when NPC Dwarves used Belfars Forgespark which beacme a Moridins faith exclusive spell.
Magic item creation is one of the most hated parts of 3rd and 4E to me and it part of the building blocks for power gamers it enabled when combined with feats.
Zardnaar wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Guys can we stop discussing 4e in the 5e board? We're not getting anywhere, and it distracts from the 5e discussion. There is a whole other board for 4e discussion.
FFSAA wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
kalil wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
This is how I handle it:
"Hey guys I want to run a campaign. Part of that is magic items are rare and I don't want magic items to just be created willy nilly. If you are up for it, we start on Friday night."
The players that are interested will show up. Those that have an issue with it won't. Pretty simple beyond that.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I also hate char-op builds. In fact, I hate the entire concept of char-oping.
I think the more that activity breaks the game the more people will focus on creating characters who are persons and not simply junk boxes full of mechanical tricks. IMO, people who like that sort of thing can stick with other editions or PF.
Zardnaar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Lest anyone forget, Gary and Daves high level PCs all have multiple 16s and usually at least one 18. They are all almost always spellcasters.
If that isn't power gaming, I don't know what is.
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Well, I have nothing against people that optimize their characters. Honestly, when a player gets to break the rules system and produce an OP character, I think it’s the fault of the system that allowed this to happen in the first place.
Shasarak wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
The "not being able to hurt certain creatures with your weapons" is something I'm currently wrestling with for a homebrew world that I've resumed working on with 5E.
This world hasn't had powerful magic long enough to believably place magic items in hoards across the land. Honestly, it will be refreshing to have another setting in which magic items are not the norm and are not really to be expected. (We play often in Eberron, and some in Faerun and Athas, as well as in a homebrew world of our joint devising. Of that lot, only Athas fits that description, as we play them.)
My current thinking is to use special materials as the main differentiator between common and wondrous weapons. Replacing the "damage from non-magical weapons" resistances found throughout the Monster Manual shouldn't be too onerous. I'm thinking that I'll make silvered or cold-forged iron weapons the weapons of heroes and monster slayers. I may throw in an exceedingly rare material or two of my own devising to supplement those classics.
Thoughts?
tallric_kruush wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Let's face it, this thread was kinda pointless from the beginning.
Thank_Dog wrote:
Athinar1 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
I have never seen a thread, on any message board, that starts with the words "I Hate", end well.
Mainly because whatever it is you hate? Someone loves.
Just sayin', maybe it's not the right tack to take if you're interested in a productive discussion.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The whole "build" word/concept became pretty vulgar, starting with 3rd Ed (treating the game like a Magic deck, which I was a king of, my Kismet/Stasis/Chronotog/Despotic Sceptre and a few other choice cards, I cannot recall this minute, was nigh unbeatable).
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
You are both making me extremely hungry... though I have to confess that my preferred items encased in bread and intended for being eaten is actually a burrito (pinto beans, brown rice, grilled chicken, corn salsa and pico de gallo, shredded cheddar and monterrey jack cheeses, and a touch of sour cream, all wrapped in a whole wheat tortilla).
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Pangur wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote: