What I do is build sturdy characters and play them well. I set a goal for what I want to do, and attain it without bending the rules in any way, shape or form. The thing that burns me is that their IS a min-maxer in our group. Cheats his rolls all the time, uses the cheesiest builds, all that stuff. They call him a munchkin too. As you can guess, I'm ****** that I'm being lumped into the same catagory as this other person. I don't know what to do. I don't see what they'd label as munchkinisim. Should I just play commoners? take skill focus: caligraphy for all my feats? Only put ranks into proffession? What? I used to take pride in a well built character, but now I feel like I'm doing something dirty. I'll post my current one so you can judge for yourselves.
Focused specialist: Transmutation: (Necromancy, evocation, Illusion banned)
Collector of stories skill trick
Flaw:
Inatentive
Feats:
Collegiate wizard
Combat Casting
Power Attack
Extend Spell (traded for scribe scroll)
Improved Familiar (For a krenshar)
Improved Initiative
Improved Toughness
Arcane Strike
blade of force
The worst thing I have in my spell book is wraithstrike.
The distinction may escape the standard roleplaying Nazi, but not all optimizers are munchkins. Some of us like to play characters who don't have Wis and Int scores of 3.
This guy sounds like he's in it to beat the **** out of things. The cheating may be a problem, but he's well within his rights to use cheesy builds if they don't bend or break the rules or spoil the fun of the others. Sadly enough, some people dislike mechanical effectiveness. :P
"Now, now, let's get our terms correct. A munchkin is someone who cheats; fudges die rolls, changes numbers in mid-game ... like (Steve) here. I'm a powergamer. I'm just efficient."
A little more seriously ...
3rd Edition was pretty damned Darwinian. 1st level characters were ridiculously fragile. Save or dies abounded. System Mastery (the concept of 'being good' at D&D) was one of the basic design principles. It is very easy to make a very bad D&D character (say, by playing a fighter or monk) due to the high number of newbie traps in feats and class features.
If you wanted a 3rd Edition character to survive, you had to plan it out WAY in advance and be very careful. 90% of everything 3rd Edition was weak to mediocre; if you didn't pick from the 10% that was gold, you were going to suck and die. You're basically doing what you have to do, and what you're supposed to do; building an efficient, useful character with some survivability.
I'd be more worried if the guy didn't change his numbers. HP has to go down, doesn't it?
I mean things like suddenly removing a couple ranks of one skill to suddenly have something better in something that just came up, changing his armor class with no reason for it to change, LIghtning Reflexes suddenly becoming Iron Will when I know he said he had Lightning Reflexes and not Iron Will, etc.
Human Fighter-1/Wizard-5/Eldritch knight-2/Abjurant Champion-3
Focused specialist: Transmutation: (Necromancy, evocation, Illusion banned)
Collector of stories skill trick
Flaw:
Inatentive
Feats:
Collegiate wizard
Combat Casting
Power Attack
Extend Spell (traded for scribe scroll)
Improved Familiar (For a krenshar)
Improved Initiative
Improved Toughness
Arcane Strike
blade of force
The worst thing I have in my spell book is wraithstrike.
Well, wraithstrike is pretty bad, but I don't think that's the issue here.
Without meaning to criticize, your group may be seeing your rules knowledge and your non-gimped character (as Salla said, it's pretty easy to have a terrible character in 3.5) and assuming that you care more about rules and being "good" than you do about the story. The best way to fix that, in my estimation, is to go out of your way to prove them wrong by roleplaying the heck out of your PC.
If that doesn't work, or isn't really your taste, then you may simply have to accept the label. I'm not saying it's accurate at all, but humor at someone else's expense is a time-honored group bonding ritual, and this seems to be the handle they've decided on for getting to you. You can do what Salla suggests, and correct their definition of munchkin every time it comes up--just don't expect it to stop coming up.
Human Fighter-1/Wizard-5/Eldritch knight-2/Abjurant Champion-3
Focused specialist: Transmutation: (Necromancy, evocation, Illusion banned)
Collector of stories skill trick
Flaw:
Inatentive
Feats:
Collegiate wizard
Combat Casting
Power Attack
Extend Spell (traded for scribe scroll)
Improved Familiar (For a krenshar)
Improved Initiative
Improved Toughness
Arcane Strike
blade of force
The worst thing I have in my spell book is wraithstrike.
Are you a bad player.....
Well, that pretty much depends upon why you chose what you did.
Was the 1st thing on your mind whatever +s or other advantages would be gained?
Or were the choices made so as to mesh with the story/game developments?
Are you progressing an actual character? Or just building a better game-piece?
Only you know the answers.
Are you a bad player.....
Well, that pretty much depends upon why you chose what you did.
Was the 1st thing on your mind whatever +s or other advantages would be gained?
Or were the choices made so as to mesh with the story/game developments?
Are you progressing an actual character? Or just building a better game-piece?
Only you know the answers.
This, pretty much. Do you play your character as inattentive? Is he a collector of stories? Do the other characters know why he's a champion mageknight? Or are his feats and abilities essentially divorced from how you play him?
If the stats you just showed us are also an accurate summary of the attitudes of your character, then no, you're not a munchkin at all. If, to use a particularly central example, your character is not in any way portrayed as inattentive, then in my games I'd be slightly irked at you for taking that flaw for the sheer mechanical benefit. In my groups, we play to roleplay. Mechanics come less than second (probably about fourth, after snacking foods and star wars jokes)
This is an opportunity to explore your character and not the class of your character. ;)
The fact that everyone turns to you would indicate that you are honest and trustworthy in your group of players. Let them know you don't like being lumped into the same catagory as the other guy.
Are you a bad player.....
Well, that pretty much depends upon why you chose what you did.
Was the 1st thing on your mind whatever +s or other advantages would be gained?
Or were the choices made so as to mesh with the story/game developments?
Are you progressing an actual character? Or just building a better game-piece?
Only you know the answers.
*blows whistle*
Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone cares about making a useful character does not mean they do not also RP.
15 yard penalty, loss of down.
*blows whistle*
Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone cares about making a useful character does not mean they do not also RP.
15 yard penalty, loss of down.
I think what he means is that some people make stat and level up choices without any bearing in the game world.
Like a rogue suddenly starts taking levels in wizard without even owning a spell book or spending some off time "studying arcane things." It just doesn't make sense for a character to be running around stabbing monsters for a few days then suddenly having the same amount of arcane power as a person who studies for a decade on such matters.
It's like, you need to RP correctly if you make a strong char, but if the char is weak, RP is optional and no one cares about it.
You know what I see when I read your character description? A PC who doesn't need a team. That's the flaw of most power gamers. It's easy to optimize a lone character, but much more challenging to optimize one member of a cohesive party.
My recommendation is to give your character a flaw. Not a fake flaw where you give up something you don't really care about for an edge in something you do, but a real serious flaw that can only be filled by another PC on your team. For example, instead of saying to yourself, "Wizards are squishy, I need to put something in my build to make me less useless in case I get into melee," say, "Wizards are squishy. I need to put something in my build to help my defender buddies last long enough to do their job, 'cause if that front line breaks, I'm screwed."
When everyone focuses on one thing and does that one thing well, the party as a whole actually ends up more powerful than if each individual "optimizes" their character without regard to the others.
One of my favorite characters was optimized for the one thing he does best being movement, such as dexterity, balance, tumble, climb, and various teleportation spell-like abilities. He also had pretty high hit points and a decent crit range, but everything else was mediocre at best. Something a power gamer would never build.
However, he worked well with the team. He could easily move into flanking positions to help the rogue. He could move quickly to get the sorceror out of trouble. He could quickly get places to negate terrain advantages of enemies. He had just enough hit points to last long enough for the other party members to do their jobs. He was often key to encounters, but not by overshadowing or not needing the other party members.
I think what he means is that some people make stat and level up choices without any bearing in the game world.
Like a rogue suddenly starts taking levels in wizard without even owning a spell book or spending some off time "studying arcane things." It just doesn't make sense for a character to be running around stabbing monsters for a few days then suddenly having the same amount of arcane power as a person who studies for a decade on such matters.
See, I have a DM who likes for us to roleplay (which I like doing) and wants us to try and make class decisions based upon how we RP.
For example, I started off as a Rogue 2. my character backstory was to have him kill the person who murdered his mother and nearly kill him, so as soon as he met the requirements for it, he went into the Avenger PrC (Assassin PrC for non-evil characters). He's stuck with it for a while now, but his other big issue has shown it's ugly head; he dislikes spellcasters. A lot. He knows they're a necessary "evil," and uses spells of his own from being an Avenger, but would like to be able to take his enemy's spells and use them against him.
So, for the past few months in-game time, he's been talking to various mages (several of them in near-epic levels) and, thanks to his high INT score, he's able to learn a bit about spells and know how to steal them; hence why he is now a Rogue 5/Avenger 5/Spellthief 1. As I have it planned out, he's going to go another level (learn how to detect magic) as a Spellthief before returning to his Avenger-ing leveling, and then spending the rest of his time as a spellthief.
As for the topic on-hand, so long as you don't fudge die rolls, find really odd-ball rules to make your character broken at level 3 (I've seen it done) and metagame left and right, you're a decent player.
*blows whistle*
Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone cares about making a useful character does not mean they do not also RP.
15 yard penalty, loss of down.
Yeah, whatever, keep your football references & SWF crap to yourself. You and virtually everybody else know what I mean.
Unfortunately, these attitudes tend to stick in people's heads. You can argue the merits of your build all you want, but you're still going to have that reputation because your fellow players will have the attitude of "whatever, you're just trying to justify your munchkin character." It's a mix of jealousy, ignorance (of the rules), and fear of the unknown. There's not necessarily anything wrong with the way they feel...it's just the way that they feel.
If you can deal with it -- and it sounds like the issue is that you take strong exception to being called a munchkin -- then do so. You're playing the game your way, and you're having fun, so who cares what they think (as long as they're still having fun; if your character is doing everything in the campaign and stealing the spotlight, that may be an issue). If you can't, listen to the others who've replied: RP like crazy. Don't make a new character, because that's just bending to the peer pressure, and you won't have fun and you'll resent them for ruining the game for you.
You might consider helping them with their characters -- not just the bonuses, but the actual character. Use your knowledge to point them to prestige classes and builds that fulfill their character goals -- e.g., if the barbarian hates magic, point his player toward the occult slayer PrC. Just be careful to offer your help and not just give unsolicited advice. Good luck!
Oh, and to answer the essential question: you're seeking feedback and seem open to change. That makes you a good player, regardless of what you play or how you play it.
In my experience:
- The "munchkin" label is not necessarily assigned objectively
- Once someone is considered a "munchkin", it's hard to change that attitude
- The following things tend to contribute to a "Munchkin" reputation: (a) big numbers, in particularly damage (danger: wraithstrike + power attack), (b) self-sufficiency, (c) succeeding against all odds, (d) multiclassing, in particular multiple with PrCs and taking a second PrC before finishing the first. I know, it's almost impossible to make a non-primary caster character without it, but that's how some people see it.
What can you do? You have several options.
I like Salla's suggestion of just clarifying the term whenever it comes up. Munchkinism implies breaking rules, and is an insult to those who don't do that.
Another option is to play a support character. I've yet to meet a group that called a player of a support character "munchkin". Plus, nobody gets frustrated/envious when you get the high numbers, as in this case they tend to be big bonuses for the rest of the party. Concretely, try a Bard/Marshal/SublimeChord, for example, focusing on Inspire Courage and party buff spells. You'll be loved, you'll be a hero.
A third option is to get a new group to start over, but I guess that's not what you want.
Depending on your DM, it can help to occasionally discuss potentially strong choices (feats, PrCs) with your DM beforehand by stressing their power. Most DMs I've worked with will encourage you to take such feats/PrCs etc. once you've told them something like: "you know, my character's personal quest to combine arcane and martial arts has come to a critical juncture. I believe X has now enough experience to finally weave the two strings together and develop his own magical fighting style, as he has been trying for the last few levels. I've looked at the mechanical options to realize this development, and I stumbled on the Eldritch Knight PrC. It seems powerful, even though I will be even further behind in spell progression. Still, it looks like the best mechanical representation of X's character development. What do you think?". (Note: I realize that this particular PrC is not strong).
Taking classes that have everything to do with the campaign's RP.
I do it myself for my own PCs and NPCs, and encourage the players to do so, even if it's not the most "Efficient CharOp build."
+1
Frostwolf, your character is far from being a munchkin. The only thing you did to qualify yourself as a munchkin was playing right and doing a good job. Compare your character sheet to the other players' and show them how they could make they're characters a lot better next level or something like that.
With that said, please allow me to continue.
When I read your character, I can easily see why you have the Munchkin label even though they do not appear to understand the definition of said label.
When a player has a combination of 4 classes/PRCs, everyone who does not will consider that person a munchkin or min-maxer. If you would just look at you character with a critical eye, you should see their point of view. If I were your DM, I would wonder what you were up to.
I also agree with those who said you should have a role-playing reason for these classes/PRCs. If you don't, the group has every reason to believe you are attempting to cheat/find an advantage. Players who do not create characters in this manner are leary of those who do. The same goes for your DM. Put yourself in their shoes and understand they might actually be afraid of your character!
Usually if something comes up in a game, I can point out the answer, or solve the problem. But the things I find that are broken, I try to steer away from, or to recommend houserules to fix them. I'm sure there are times when I get on players or GM's nerves, but for the most part it makes sessions go faster. Also if the DM makes a call on something, I don't argue or try to press the issue (this happened more in SR4, then in DnD.. But I was the only person who had done any research on the matrix rules, everyone else preferred to avoid them).
So, if your group is giving you a hard time. You could go wallflower, and just follow along, but that's not much fun. Basically let the real munchkin do the arguing, and just go with your DM on whatever calls he makes. Also, maybe cut down your book library a little bit, try building chars from 3 books or less, and choose ones that most of the players (and GM) are familiar with. That's probably what makes people look like munchkins the most (even if they don't intend to), when you have feats and powers that the other players had no idea existed.
Also, try and go over your character with the DM before you actually play him. That way he isn't hit by any surprises. Especially if your character has some signature move you can do by pairing powers/feats together. Maybe it might make you look like an over-zealous player, but its better than the GM telling you no the first time you try and do something. And if the GM won't give you definite approval right away on something, leave him alone. It doesn't need to be approved until the sessions actually start.
I think what he means is that some people make stat and level up choices without any bearing in the game world.
Like a rogue suddenly starts taking levels in wizard without even owning a spell book or spending some off time "studying arcane things." It just doesn't make sense for a character to be running around stabbing monsters for a few days then suddenly having the same amount of arcane power as a person who studies for a decade on such matters.
It's funny, I've *definitely* played (and had other players play) a few characters who did things similar to that, but we've *never* used anything as simple or as boring as "off-time studying" to explain it. For a few characters, it came through the manifestation of natural talent that were further cultivated through a variety of circumstances. One character in particular started out as a rogue, but dabbled a bit as a hedge wizard before deciding to focus exclusively on her emerging talents there. Another character had access to all sorts of new and strange powers after coming back from the dead.
Further, there are plenty of other ways to bridge the gap between the Rogue, who can pick up a scroll, figure out what it does, and manage to unlock the magic it contains (UMD), and the Rogue/Wizard, who has a somewhat better understanding and is able to transcribe that scroll and use its magic from memory. The rationale for that progression barely requires a stronger in-game explanation at all, and certainly doesn't require the character to cloister themselves in study or submit to tutelege from an archmage or anything like that.
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people suggest that the default fluff for a class (in this case, "wizards have studied for years") should dictate and limit what a player can do with his character in terms of justifying class progression. Most players are bright and can come up with pretty inventive ways to characterize an odd multiclass progression, and a lot of DMs think that they're being "good DMs" by refusing said progressions because those rationales differ too much from the default you present above.
Especially because more than likely, the DM isn't giving you any time in-game to work the fluff to gain access to abilities.
Personally, just seems like a control freak thing to do to me.