59 réponses à ce sujet

[martixy]

 Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...).

I think it got lost somewhere in the wide Internetz...

[Bard Simpson]

Let's see, there is an archive of the BioBoard Epic Character Builders Guild hosted by the World of Greyhawk: home.comcast.net/~worldofgreyhawk/builds/

There is the new NWN Epic Character Builders Guild: nwnecbguild.44.forumer.com/index.php

Specifically, on the new site, there is the BioWare Legacy Builds page: nwnecbguild.44.forumer.com/bioware-legacy-builds-f60574.html

I expect the last link is what you want, but they're all useful. Happy building!

[Lightfoot8]

The old one died with all nwn1 stuff on bioware. Kail did start a new site.

New Epic Character Builders Guild Forums

Modifié par Lightfoot8, 29 août 2012 - 11:20 .

[martixy]

Yes, jackpot, this one was it - nwnecbguild.44.forumer.com/bioware-legacy-builds-f60574.html
I recognize some of the old builds

Glad to see nothing ever truly gets lost in the internetz

[WebShaman]

Why are they being labeled "munchkin" builds? o_0

I feel slightly offended here.

[MagicalMaster]

A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how detrimental their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers.

Munchkins are often accused of twinking or roll-playing, a pun on 'role' that notes how munchkins are often more concerned with the numbers and die rolls than with the roles that they play.

A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 30 août 2012 - 04:11 .

[ffbj]

Not to be confused with zombie children, munch-skins.

[WebShaman]

The creation of builds (for the Epic Builds Guild, yadda yadda yadda) is not a case of "munchkin-ness" IMHO - rather, it is part of the game itself. It is much like building - you take the available things and build with it. In the case of Character builds, the things are stats, feats, abilities, races, etc.

One will note that most of the builds have a "class explanation text" that sort of RP-like explains it.

It, in and of itself, has nothing to do with "amasing the greatest power, score the most "kills", and/or grab the most loot. Instead, it is mostly just a pasttime for most who have made those builds.

If the Dwarflord was still active, I am sure he could explain it much better.

[Elhanan]

^ Agreed; the NWN and Epic Builders have many story based designs available if one wishes to follow a theme. Simple use can confirm this rather quickly.

And min/max designs by themselves do not always remove thematic needs. Part of the challenge of some builders is to design the most effective character for a specific setting, even if there are actually better builds available.

Labels like this restrict far too much, and are seen far too often. IMO.

[MagicalMaster]

WebShaman wrote...

The creation of builds (for the Epic Builds Guild, yadda yadda yadda) is not a case of "munchkin-ness" IMHO - rather, it is part of the game itself. It is much like building - you take the available things and build with it. In the case of Character builds, the things are stats, feats, abilities, races, etc.

Maybe you don't remember, but the Bioware official page for some level 40 character builds *specifically* called it munchkinism and explained the concept.  Sadly I think the page is gone now, but it was Bioware who used the term originally.

WebShaman wrote...

One will note that most of the builds have a "class explanation text" that sort of RP-like explains it.

It, in and of itself, has nothing to do with "amasing the greatest power, score the most "kills", and/or grab the most loot. Instead, it is mostly just a pasttime for most who have made those builds.

And the RP difference between a Fighter 12/Rogue 3/Assassin 25 and a Fighter 10/Rogue 1/Assassin 29 and a Fighter 14/Rogue 5/Assassin 21 is?...

Nothing.  The difference in the levels per class, stats, and feats is for the purpose of maximizing power in 99% of cases.  Which is called optimization in WoW, but powergaming/munchkinism in NWN.

Then you have builds like 1 Paladin/1 Monk/38 Sorcerer which *really* embrace munchkinism completely.  And please don't say there's an RP explanation for that, you have *never* thought "Hmm, I'd like a paladin who also trained as a monk and a sorcerer" and come up with 1/1/38.

Elhanan wrote...

^ Agreed; the NWN and Epic Builders have many story based designs available if one wishes to follow a theme. Simple use can confirm this rather quickly.

They might have "many," but the vast majority have nothing to do with story.

Elhanan wrote...

And min/max designs by themselves do not always remove thematic needs. Part of the challenge of some builders is to design the most effective character for a specific setting, even if there are actually better builds available.

It's still munchkinism to adjust the Exalted Sorceress for a specific setting.

Elhanan wrote...

Labels like this restrict far too much, and are seen far too often. IMO.

Like I said, blame Bioware.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Maybe you don't remember, but the Bioware official page for some level 40 character builds *specifically* called it munchkinism and explained the concept.  Sadly I think the page is gone now, but it was Bioware who used the term originally.

And the RP difference between a Fighter 12/Rogue 3/Assassin 25 and a Fighter 10/Rogue 1/Assassin 29 and a Fighter 14/Rogue 5/Assassin 21 is?...

Nothing.  The difference in the levels per class, stats, and feats is for the purpose of maximizing power in 99% of cases.  Which is called optimization in WoW, but powergaming/munchkinism in NWN.

Then you have builds like 1 Paladin/1 Monk/38 Sorcerer which *really* embrace munchkinism completely.  And please don't say there's an RP explanation for that, you have *never* thought "Hmm, I'd like a paladin who also trained as a monk and a sorcerer" and come up with 1/1/38.

They might have "many," but the vast majority have nothing to do with story.

It's still munchkinism to adjust the Exalted Sorceress for a specific setting.

Like I said, blame Bioware.

Nope; tend to blame the one that is misusing the terms. Whether or not Bioware used this term correctly originally does not pardon those using it in error it now.

Strawmen designs may be offered all day, but any design can have an RP 'label' attached, as it is imaginary in the first place. And a PG design does not always invalidate a RP purpose; simply tries to make the best of it as a rule.

Also, imaginary stats such as 99% mean little to nothing; stats are the third lie. All I require is a single exception to invalidate the misnomer, and there are many. While there may be 'overpowered' designs seen in those files, this does not make the file itself overpowered.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Nope; tend to blame the one that is misusing the terms. Whether or not Bioware used this term correctly originally does not pardon those using it in error it now.

It isn't being used in error, though.  Remember the whole

"A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities."

part?  The vast majority of builds in the ECB forum are designed to focus on increasing the statistical power of the characters and care nothing about personalities.  Even the ones who care about personalities are attaching their own idea to the build, which means other people will and do come in, take the mechanical build, and trash the personality because they don't care about it.

Elhanan wrote...

Also, imaginary stats such as 99% mean little to nothing; stats are the third lie. All I require is a single exception to invalidate the misnomer, and there are many. While there may be 'overpowered' designs seen in those files, this does not make the file itself overpowered.

Okay, go ahead and glance at the first 100 builds listed in the ECB guild.  Tell me how many of those aren't focused on squeezing out every last inch of character power.  If there's more than, say, five, I'd be extraordinarily shocked.

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

It isn't being used in error, though.  Remember the whole

"A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities."

part?  The vast majority of builds in the ECB forum are designed to focus on increasing the statistical power of the characters and care nothing about personalities.  Even the ones who care about personalities are attaching their own idea to the build, which means other people will and do come in, take the mechanical build, and trash the personality because they don't care about it.

Okay, go ahead and glance at the first 100 builds listed in the ECB guild.  Tell me how many of those aren't focused on squeezing out every last inch of character power.  If there's more than, say, five, I'd be extraordinarily shocked.

Sorry, but to drop a name with respect, almost anything seen by grizzled_dwarflord may not be optimized for power, but for playability.

Using the Ftr/ Rog/ Assassin mentioned earlier yields a result of his of a design that strives towards playing a more fulfilling Assassin PC, but is not geared towards PvP much at all. It has no Dev or Overwhelming Crit, uses a mace when other weapons may be better, and is dependant on UMD to shore up a weakness. Yet, this build is fully viable, but it is not optimized.

Now I have yet to ever visit the ECB forums; simply use their Search engine, and their builds are full of variations on themes (eg; Robin Hood). And if there was a best design, then only a single result would seem to be rerquired; yet several are offered. The reason is often an offering for subjective criteria, themes, whatever; will let actual contributors speak of their motives.

Given that defintion, if there is a decisive best to be saught, then every result but one in each category is not best; thus the site is NOT for Munchkins.

Now for those that wish to purposely hinder their designs with useless Feats, skills, etc in the name of RP: Sorry, but a lack of power does not a RP'er make. Some of the best RP players I have met in NWN1 are also partial PG. Being good in RP has nothing at all to do with a strong or weak build at all.

Builders often wish to make efficient designs given various criteria; being the decisive best is not always the goal.

Modifié par Elhanan, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Bansidhe]

Dunno about you,but when im playing on a slow lvling RP server I pretty much want my char. too be a hero,just like all those stories and films that inspired me too play rpg,s...so yes I will check out builds and tweak them too my tastes.

Is that munchkinism..I dont think so ,I call it making my char. what I envisioned,they may even veer off course on their journey depending what happens in their life.

Optomising,yes could call it that,but then,so do Olympic athletes too achieve what they do,I dont see the problem.

I often find the above "Oooh look he took epic prowess with his barbarian fighter instead of basket weaving,which y'"know would be so much more representative of his arable upbringing!" a bit method actor luvvie Mwah,mwah,gosh im so elitest,I actually studied macrame for my Ranger ,cos y.know it gives the character "depth".What go out on a hunt,God no I always get killed! too be honest.
Simple solution,You make your char how you like and i,ll make mine how I like,end of.

And one last thing has anyone,anyone at all who,s played on a pw ever just pressed the recommended button for every lvl? No?,,,,Munchkin!*points*

[MrZork]

I am in the camp that the munchkin is in the player (or at least the play style) and not the build. Yes, there are features of the game that, IMO, would be better if implemented differently to avoid benefits that are disproportionate to costs. (E.g. cap monk wisdom AC bonus to number of monk levels; ditto for divine grace save bonuses; no more than ten skill points can be spent per skill per level; etc.) But, the game is what it is. People will tweak it to their liking all day long (until, basically, they have trouble getting people to play their module because it's so different from standard NWN) and they still won't preclude munchkinism.

Part of the problem that people (like me, at least) have with use of the term "munchkin build" is the practical application of the definitions people are using when they use the term. I mean, when one labels something a "munchkin build", what is the implication?
1) It can only be played in a munchkin way.
2) It will only be played by munchkin players. (E.g. players who are only interested in kill stats, etc.)
3) It can be role-played, but the typical player of the build will be munchkin.
4) Some significant fraction of the players won't be munchkins, but enough will that they taint the impression of the build.
5) The majority of players using the build will play it about the same as they would a build without the label, but some smaller fraction of players go the munchkin route and that makes people suspicious of the rest.

And so on. The reason I mention this has to do with how strong the complaint against a "munchkin build" is. If the implication is 1), then it's a strong complaint, but 1) is almost certainly false. And, the complaint gets weaker as one goes down the list. Eventually, at say 4) or 5), the implication can apply to many builds also played by people who are excellent role-players, so the complaint against the build itself is rather weak and it's just an unpleasant label that will inevitably irk the people who play such builds and don't see themselves (or their characters) as munchkins.

And, I won't even go into the potential false dichotomy that exists in assuming someone who wants a character with great statistics can't also do a good job of role-playing. That's just nonsense, but it's a common perception.

Modifié par MrZork, 07 septembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Sorry, but to drop a name with respect, almost anything seen by grizzled_dwarflord may not be optimized for power, but for playability.

In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything, as the Exalted Sorceress is optimized for playability too.

Elhanan wrote...

Using the Ftr/ Rog/ Assassin mentioned earlier yields a result of his of a design that strives towards playing a more fulfilling Assassin PC, but is not geared towards PvP much at all. It has no Dev or Overwhelming Crit, uses a mace when other weapons may be better, and is dependant on UMD to shore up a weakness. Yet, this build is fully viable, but it is not optimized.

I never said anything about PvE or PvP specifically.  My guess would be his build assumes Sneak Attacks will cut down anything not Crit Immune, and thus he chose the weapon and skipped Dev/Over based upon fighting typical crit immune enemies (I despite crit/sneak immunity anyway, but that's another matter).

If anything, being dependent on UMD to shore up a weakness is a sign of being optimized for power assuming appopriate items rather than attempt to erase said weakness within the build by sacrificing power elsewhere.

Elhanan wrote...

Now I have yet to ever visit the ECB forums; simply use their Search engine, and their builds are full of variations on themes (eg; Robin Hood). And if there was a best design, then only a single result would seem to be rerquired; yet several are offered. The reason is often an offering for subjective criteria, themes, whatever; will let actual contributors speak of their motives.

There is a best design, it just can be world dependent.  On a world with mind spell immunity or few things requiring Will saving throws, it isn't worth investing in increasing Will, for example.  Other builds are simply inferior, someone came along later and found a better way to design the build (or thinks they did, at least).

And yes, there are some Robin Hood/Merlin/Drizzt/etc builds, but those are definitely in the minority.  Also, if you recall, the original question was:

" Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...)."

The Epic Character Builders guild is *definitely* where the munchkin builds are.  That doesn't mean every single build there is a munchkin build.

Elhanan wrote...

Now for those that wish to purposely hinder their designs with useless Feats, skills, etc in the name of RP: Sorry, but a lack of power does not a RP'er make. Some of the best RP players I have met in NWN1 are also partial PG. Being good in RP has nothing at all to do with a strong or weak build at all.

If that's directed at me, do you think someone raiding in the highest echelons of WoW is particularly concerned with RP?  We're obsessed with improving our characters by half a percent or less to give us an advantage, because it actually matters.

Bansidhe wrote...

Is that munchkinism..I dont think so ,I call it making my char. what I envisioned,they may even veer off course on their journey depending what happens in their life.

Optomising,yes could call it that,but then,so do Olympic athletes too achieve what they do,I dont see the problem.

I often find the above "Oooh look he took epic prowess with his barbarian fighter instead of basket weaving,which y'"know would be so much more representative of his arable upbringing!" a bit method actor luvvie

Optimizing is making a Barbarian with good stats and appropriate combat feats to make him as strong a fighter as possible.

Munchkinism is taking a level (or three) of rogue for Tumble dumps or 5-6 Fighter levels for Heavy Armor proficiency, bonus feats, and Epic Weapon Specialization.

MrZork wrote...

I am in the camp that the munchkin is in the player (or at least the play style) and not the build.

I don't possibly see how the Exalted Sorceress idea isn't inherently a munchkin build.

MrZork wrote...

Part of the problem that people (like me, at least) have with use of the term "munchkin build" is the practical application of the definitions people are using when they use the term. I mean, when one labels something a "munchkin build", what is the implication?
1) It can only be played in a munchkin way.
2) It will only be played by munchkin players. (E.g. players who are only interested in kill stats, etc.)
3) It can be role-played, but the typical player of the build will be munchkin.
4) Some significant fraction of the players won't be munchkins, but enough will that they taint the impression of the build.
5) The majority of players using the build will play it about the same as they would a build without the label, but some smaller fraction of players go the munchkin route and that makes people suspicious of the rest.

6. It abuses game mechanics for the sake of garnering more mechanical power.  Such as 1 level of a plate wearing class for Armor/Shield proficiency, monk AC, Paladin/Blackguard saves, skill dumps, etc.

Nothing to do with who plays it or how it is played.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 08 septembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything, as the Exalted Sorceress is optimized for playability too.

I never said anything about PvE or PvP specifically.  My guess would be his build assumes Sneak Attacks will cut down anything not Crit Immune, and thus he chose the weapon and skipped Dev/Over based upon fighting typical crit immune enemies (I despite crit/sneak immunity anyway, but that's another matter).

If anything, being dependent on UMD to shore up a weakness is a sign of being optimized for power assuming appopriate items rather than attempt to erase said weakness within the build by sacrificing power elsewhere.

There is a best design, it just can be world dependent.  On a world with mind spell immunity or few things requiring Will saving throws, it isn't worth investing in increasing Will, for example.  Other builds are simply inferior, someone came along later and found a better way to design the build (or thinks they did, at least).

And yes, there are some Robin Hood/Merlin/Drizzt/etc builds, but those are definitely in the minority.  Also, if you recall, the original question was:

" Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...)."

The Epic Character Builders guild is *definitely* where the munchkin builds are.  That doesn't mean every single build there is a munchkin build.

If that's directed at me, do you think someone raiding in the highest echelons of WoW is particularly concerned with RP?  We're obsessed with improving our characters by half a percent or less to give us an advantage, because it actually matters.

I see then; optimized builds cannot be playable as RP designs. Right....

Not assuming anything is generally recommended; be it a build that relies on items that may not be provided, or a Player guessing at motives made by designers, authors, guild entheusiests, etc.

Perhaps munchkin builds may exist at ECB, but am fairly certain that designs that have spins of the Bioware Exalted Sorceress with no AC bonuses, CHA light, etc are not likely among them.

And I do not play WoW; played solo in SWTOR, and try not to guess at the quality of other builds besides my own.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

I see then; optimized builds cannot be playable as RP designs. Right....

Point to where I said that?

I mean, *especially* after I made the distinction between "optimized" and "munchkin."  Seriously?

Elhanan wrote...

Perhaps munchkin builds may exist at ECB, but am fairly certain that designs that have spins of the Bioware Exalted Sorceress with no AC bonuses, CHA light, etc are not likely among them.

Um, I'm trying to translate this but having difficultly.

You are fairly certain that Exalted Sorceress variations with no AC bonuses and low CHA are not among Munchkin builds at ECB?

Which translates into...

You are fairly certain that Exalted Sorceress variations with high AC/CHA are among Munchkin builds at ECB?

Which is true, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 08 septembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

I see then; optimized builds cannot be playable as RP designs. Right....

Point to where I said that?

I mean, *especially* after I made the distinction between "optimized" and "munchkin."  Seriously?

"In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything, as the Exalted Sorceress is optimized for playability too."

One may RP anything, be it a powerful build or not. But simply because a design may be powerful does not equte it to being a Munchkin design.

Um, I'm trying to translate this but having difficultly.

You are fairly certain that Exalted Sorceress variations with no AC bonuses and low CHA are not among Munchkin builds at ECB?

Which translates into...

You are fairly certain that Exalted Sorceress variations with high AC/CHA are among Munchkin builds at ECB?

Which is true, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Well, seeing as that there are only five builds listed with those same classes, and only three with 38+ lvls of Sorcerer, then it would appear the majority are not Munchlin builds, at least in this case. But again, only need a single exeption to illustrate the invalidity of calling this a Munchkin site/ engine.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

"In and of itself, that doesn't mean anything, as the Exalted Sorceress is optimized for playability too."

One may RP anything, be it a powerful build or not. But simply because a design may be powerful does not equte it to being a Munchkin design.

I think you're very confused about something.  There are three types of builds we're talking about:

1. "Normal" builds
These are builds people don't plan out or builds where they pick "RP feats" like the baset weaving thing.  Or do something like say "I want my fighter to be a leader so I'll give him 16 charisma and wisdom"

2. Optimized builds
These are builds where people pick good (usually the best) stats and feats to make their character powerful.

3. Munchkin builds
These are builds where someone says "My 40 Barbarian is powerful...but imagine if I gave him a handful of fighter and rogue levels for heavy armor, extra feats, and Tumble/UMD skill dumps!"

or

"My 40 Sorcerer is powerful...but imagine if I gave him a level of monk and paladin!"

or

"My 20 Paladin/20 Champion of Torm is powerful...but imagine if I gave him two Blackguard levels for even more saves!"

And so forth.

Munchkin certainly *can* refer to a type of player, but in this thread we've been talking about builds.

And trying to RP that Paladin/Champion of Torm/Blackguard or the Sorcerer/Monk/Paladin is stretching things a bit, but I guess you could try to come up with some convoluted way to "justify it."  Regardless, the build itself is Munchkin.

Elhanan wrote...

Well, seeing as that there are only five builds listed with those same classes, and only three with 38+ lvls of Sorcerer, then it would appear the majority are not Munchlin builds, at least in this case. But again, only need a single exeption to illustrate the invalidity of calling this a Munchkin site/ engine.

No, you seem to have the whole thing backwards.  It would be more accurate to say a single example of a Munchkin build there makes it valid to call it the Munchkin page.

Why?

Because it is the *only* page/guild/whatever for *any* Munchkin builds.  Any available Munchkin builds *must* be there.  Therefore, if someone asks

" Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...)."

it is *absolutely right* to point to the ECB guild.

In addition, the existence of non-Munchkin builds on the page doesn't suddenly make the Munchkin builds disappear.

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

I think you're very confused about something.  There are three types of builds we're talking about:

1. "Normal" builds
These are builds people don't plan out or builds where they pick "RP feats" like the baset weaving thing.  Or do something like say "I want my fighter to be a leader so I'll give him 16 charisma and wisdom"

2. Optimized builds
These are builds where people pick good (usually the best) stats and feats to make their character powerful.

3. Munchkin builds
These are builds where someone says "My 40 Barbarian is powerful...but imagine if I gave him a handful of fighter and rogue levels for heavy armor, extra feats, and Tumble/UMD skill dumps!"

or

"My 40 Sorcerer is powerful...but imagine if I gave him a level of monk and paladin!"

or

"My 20 Paladin/20 Champion of Torm is powerful...but imagine if I gave him two Blackguard levels for even more saves!"

And so forth.

Munchkin certainly *can* refer to a type of player, but in this thread we've been talking about builds.

And trying to RP that Paladin/Champion of Torm/Blackguard or the Sorcerer/Monk/Paladin is stretching things a bit, but I guess you could try to come up with some convoluted way to "justify it."  Regardless, the build itself is Munchkin.

Sorry, but there is nothing Normal about selecting abilities that cripple a build. Unplanned I will buy, but those folks that select useless perks is hardly the norm.

What you ref as Optimized is the norm, as most folks in my experience do not wish to play a crippled character.

And multi-classing in any amt is not a Munchkin approach in itself. While some may use it for such, there are plenty that use other classes for themes, RP, etc. Again the pigeon hole used for this is mislabled.

No, you seem to have the whole thing backwards.  It would be more accurate to say a single example of a Munchkin build there makes it valid to call it the Munchkin page.

Why?

Because it is the *only* page/guild/whatever for *any* Munchkin builds.  Any available Munchkin builds *must* be there.  Therefore, if someone asks

" Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...)."

it is *absolutely right* to point to the ECB guild.

In addition, the existence of non-Munchkin builds on the page doesn't suddenly make the Munchkin builds disappear.

This seems to be like calling a pizza vegetarian because it has onions twixt the pork, beef, and peppereroni. Doesn't work there either.

Modifié par Elhanan, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:16 .

[MrZork]

6. It abuses game mechanics for the sake of garnering more mechanical power. Such as 1 level of a plate wearing class for Armor/Shield proficiency, monk AC, Paladin/Blackguard saves, skill dumps, etc.

There are game features that I don't think are optimally implemented, as I noted before. But, I am curious how "abuse" applies here, as distinct from "use". Where is the line between a build that makes appropriate use of a class' features and the game's (very imperfect) rules for skills and so on and a build that abuses a class? If taking one level of monk is abuse, then is taking two levels of monk abuse if I am putting together an archer-resistant build? If I am building an archer and I plan on a lot of kiting, do three levels of monk, for the edge in speed, qualify as abuse? Would my dragon build be abusing the monk class if I took 6 levels of monk to get the knockdown feats? Where is that line and what makes it the line?

And - ultimately - I guess I really don't care if people want to call some builds "munchkin" regardless of how they are played. There is no doubt that people who enjoy a stat-obsessed style of play will find much of interest to them among the epic builds. If that's what they want to do and they've found a place to do it, then godspeed and have fun. And, a referral to the epic builds and godspeed as well to those who want to RP a sorc/pal/monk with the background story of a lawful good sorcerer who rose in mystical power until she thought her powers must reveal a spark of the divine, so she took a break to explore the ways of the holy warrior, then decided that epic arcane mastery was her true calling, so she rose to near the limits of her craft before realizing that the sorcerous will and awareness of eldritch forces that she had long carefully used to direct crackling magical energies were natural cousins to the zen awareness of the ascetic warrior. If some want the same term to refer to both characters, then that's their call.

A term like "munchkin" is too broadly defined to say that it doesn't apply to many epic builds, even though it carries a negative connotation that I find unfortunate. I suspect that the use of negative terms is largely a way of expressing disapproval over build techniques one doesn't like (and sometimes sheepishness by those who still want to play them), even though many people would think of what's "wrong" with the build in terms of RP or character rationale. It seems like one could contrive a term like "leveraged build" to mean pretty much the same thing, but it wouldn't serve the purpose of displaying one's judgement quite so plainly...

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Sorry, but there is nothing Normal about selecting abilities that cripple a build. Unplanned I will buy, but those folks that select useless perks is hardly the norm.

What you ref as Optimized is the norm, as most folks in my experience do not wish to play a crippled character.

And multi-classing in any amt is not a Munchkin approach in itself. While some may use it for such, there are plenty that use other classes for themes, RP, etc. Again the pigeon hole used for this is mislabled.

I don't think you understand what "cripple" means.  If you specialize in a light hammer as a weapon master instead of a better weapon, that suddenly doesn't make the build worthless, just inferior.

And you're also giving *far* too much credit to most players if you think "optimized" is the norm.  Find an RP server and ask to look at their server vault if you're friends with an admin, you'd be *shocked* by many of the characters.

And no one uses 1 level of paladin in a Sorcerer build as a theme or for RP.  Ever.  It is munchkinism.  Which is not inherently bad or something, but call a spade a spade.

Elhanan wrote...

This seems to be like calling a pizza vegetarian because it has onions twixt the pork, beef, and peppereroni. Doesn't work there either.

There are three pizzas.

1, pork and beef
2. pepperoni and sausage
3. pork, beef, pepperoni, sausage, onions, and green peppers

If someone asks you "Which is the pizza with the vegetables?" which pizza will you point to?

MrZork wrote...

There are game features that I don't think are optimally implemented, as I noted before. But, I am curious how "abuse" applies here, as distinct from "use". Where is the line between a build that makes appropriate use of a class' features and the game's (very imperfect) rules for skills and so on and a build that abuses a class? If taking one level of monk is abuse, then is taking two levels of monk abuse if I am putting together an archer-resistant build? If I am building an archer and I plan on a lot of kiting, do three levels of monk, for the edge in speed, qualify as abuse? Would my dragon build be abusing the monk class if I took 6 levels of monk to get the knockdown feats? Where is that line and what makes it the line?

If you're taking levels in a class because it gives disproportionate benefits to the amount invested, you're abusing it.  There was a whole forum thread on this topic a year or two ago and I really don't feel like repeating it.

Note: I don't think there's inherently wrong with abusing the rules to make the most powerful characters possible, assuming you're in an environment where everyone is on board with it, but it is munchkinism, for better or for worse.  There's a reason the vast majority of RP PWs have multiclass restrictions (both in terms of stuff like "no mixing sorcerer with either paladin or blackguard" and "5 levels minimum per class.")

MrZork wrote...

And - ultimately - I guess I really don't care if people want to call some builds "munchkin" regardless of how they are played.

Munchkin refers to the mindset of the player or the build itself.  It has nothing to do with how the character is actually played.

MrZork wrote...

A term like "munchkin" is too broadly defined to say that it doesn't apply to many epic builds, even though it carries a negative connotation that I find unfortunate. I suspect that the use of negative terms is largely a way of expressing disapproval over build techniques one doesn't like (and sometimes sheepishness by those who still want to play them), even though many people would think of what's "wrong" with the build in terms of RP or character rationale. It seems like one could contrive a term like "leveraged build" to mean pretty much the same thing, but it wouldn't serve the purpose of displaying one's judgement quite so plainly...

Except it's *not* a negative connotation in many cases.  That's the funny thing.  Many people enjoy finding ways to abuse rules and exploit loopholes to get the most powerful "legal" characters possible.  Sometimes these characters are incredibly broken (Look up "Pun pun the kobold" if you don't believe me).

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but many times people would prefer to play with characters that aren't munchkinized.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:25 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

I don't think you understand what "cripple" means.  If you specialize in a light hammer as a weapon master instead of a better weapon, that suddenly doesn't make the build worthless, just inferior.

And you're also giving *far* too much credit to most players if you think "optimized" is the norm.  Find an RP server and ask to look at their server vault if you're friends with an admin, you'd be *shocked* by many of the characters.

And no one uses 1 level of paladin in a Sorcerer build as a theme or for RP.  Ever.  It is munchkinism.  Which is not inherently bad or something, but call a spade a spade.

I believe cripple may mean "to impair" or "to hamper". And in the case of a WM where feats are already somewhat needed for prereqs, purposely selecting ones that have no benefit seems somewhat wasteful as well as weakened.
 
Mistakes do happen; why I concede that unplanned errors may be part of the norm. But to do so purposely is not normal in my experience; only rare exceptions that mistakenly belived that this made for good RP.

And while I do not recall anyone using a single lvl of Paladin with Sorcerer, I can recall vividly where one did this with Cleric; for helping both the RP and efffectiveness of the design.

While it may be outside of the realm of experience for some, this does not exclude it from being quite possible and viable.

There are three pizzas.

1, pork and beef
2. pepperoni and sausage
3. pork, beef, pepperoni, sausage, onions, and green peppers

If someone asks you "Which is the pizza with the vegetables?" which pizza will you point to?

Yet none of the three are completlely vegetarian, so someone must continue to look elsewhere....

Modifié par Elhanan, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:04 .

[MrZork]

MM, you really can't get around the fact that the term "munchkin" usually has a negative connotation. Similarly, it's a very odd thing to refer to a practice as an "abuse" without implying that there's something wrong with it. Like most other negative terms, they can be used playfully in some contexts. But, if someone is reading a discussion about munchkin builds that work by abusing the rules, then it's perfectly natural for him to assume something negative is being implied about the builds. Ultimately, I think that's what irritates some of the people who responded in this thread.