The munchkin builds page

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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...
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               I really like what you are posting, MrZork!!  +1 here!

Specifically, the parts about munchkin is the player, not the character.  And the negative connotations behind the terms munchkin and abuse.

The Exhalted Sorceress is not the "best" build - or at least, it wasn't.  Before patch 1.69 changed things, it was Puff the Dragon (environment dependent, of course).

I agree with MrZork and the others here - an optimized build is, in and of itself, not abuse or munchkin.  It is a culmination of a deep understanding of the rules and how they work.

Now, one may take issue with the rules (as MrZork has so eloquently pointed out) - and in this instance, I would be one here that tends to do so (as I have a real objection to Paladins who backstab...ermmm...sneak attack).  But that is a can with different worms here, IMHO.

Back to the ECB - my two creations stand out, IMHO.  I created the MM, and the Ranger Archer builds.  Are they "munchkin"?  I do not think so.  In high magic environments, the builds are certainly weak.

And this, as Elhanan pointed out, is the major difference IMHO between NWN and any other game.  In NWN, you have so many hugely different types of environments, that there is no possible way to create an optimized build that is equally effective in them all.

You want a PvP optimized character?  It probably will not be effective in environment X.  Vice versa, quid pro quo.  And so on.

The ECB came together because veterans (I use this term lightly) of the game who have experienced a portion (or more) of the different environments noticed that it is possible to optimize for certain criteria and started to do so, posting their builds for others.  For some, it became a pasttime in and of itself.

I will start out with this little gem :

MM said:

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

Ok, in this certain environment, we are playing with the PRC enabled.  So, the ES is nowhere near the optimized build here.  So, in light of the environmental conditions, can you now see how the ES can not be a "munchkin" build?  It will not get you "teh lootz!" on this server, as it is balanced for much more powerful builds.

MM said :

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.

Well, go take a look.  Please be aware that I will, of course, be measuring these builds along the lines of environmental criteria, where I get to set the environmental conditions, of course.

Prepare to be extraordinarily shocked.

About the only real case of "munchkin" builds that exist are "hax0r" type .bics - which basically are optimized for Munchkin power in any environment (because they really do abuse -I prefer the term exploit here- the NWN engine).

These are the ONLY builds that I consider munchkin, though I do understand that there are those who like to play the game in this type of environment (mostly PvP type ones).  And yes, there is quite a bit of expertise required to be able to build such creations (or at least there were, as some of the best .bics eventually got released to the public).

Leto really made such possible (and there was quite a bit of knowledge about how to do this (hacking .bics) before the leto forum went down.

So, in light of the above, is the ES munchkin?  I don't think so.  It is nowhere near the power of a hacked .bic character.  And neither are any of the ECB builds.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Elhanan wrote...

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.

Cripple means more than merely "to impair" or "to hamper."  More like "to severely impair or hamper."  As in, a normal person can run.  A person with a mild injury has his running impaired.  A person with a major injury is crippled and cannot run at all.

A crippled WM would be one with 8 Dex/8 Str and everything in Wisdom or something.
 

Elhanan wrote...

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.

You do realize there are plenty of people who plan out builds, create them correctly, and the builds are still bad?  If everyone was good at creating builds there kind of wouldn't have been a need for the ECB guild.  There's a reason it's considered unusual and not part of the norm.

Elhanan wrote...

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

He didn't ask for a vegetarian pizza.  He wanted to know where he could find Munchkin builds.  This does not mean every build at that location is a Munchkin build, just that some are.  If you cannot see that important distinction, then this is completely pointless.

MrZork wrote...

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.

I feel it's worth pointing out that the first person irritated was Webshaman, and he was offended by

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

No one had mentioned the word abuse or anything else at that point.  He then asked why the original poster had used the word "munchkin" and things went from there.

Incidentally, the reason the OP used the word munchkin is because he wanted a very powerful build.  He was using it in a positive sense, aka "I don't want an RP build, I want a munckin build."

I feel it's also worth pointing out that "munchkin" is *only* negative from the view of an RPer.  If a person tried to join my guild in WoW and claimed he was an RPer, he'd be laughed out.  RPers also tend (in general) to dislike "powergaming" (even though the two are not exclusive).

I remember doing Mock Trial in high school.  That was all about abusing every loophole we could find to give our team an advantage.  We would have laughed if someone claimed we weren't keeping true to the "intent" of the case because our goal was to *win.*  Within the rules, but intent be damned.

WebShaman wrote...

The Exhalted Sorceress is not the "best" build - or at least, it wasn't.  Before patch 1.69 changed things, it was Puff the Dragon (environment dependent, of course).

Doesn't have to be the "best" build to be a munchkin build.  If you made a 38 sorcerer/1 monk/1 paladin and then gave him nothing but Skill Foci feats, it would still be a munchkin build.

WebShaman wrote...

I agree with MrZork and the others here - an optimized build is, in and of itself, not abuse or munchkin.  It is a culmination of a deep understanding of the rules and how they work.

No, of course an optimized build isn't necessarily munchkin and it takes knowledge of how the rules work to create an optimized build.  If you recall, I specifically separated the two categories earlier on.

WebShaman wrote...

Back to the ECB - my two creations stand out, IMHO.  I created the MM, and the Ranger Archer builds.  Are they "munchkin"?  I do not think so.  In high magic environments, the builds are certainly weak.

You'd have to point out the builds to me.

WebShaman wrote...

Ok, in this certain environment, we are playing with the PRC enabled.  So, the ES is nowhere near the optimized build here.  So, in light of the environmental conditions, can you now see how the ES can not be a "munchkin" build?  It will not get you "teh lootz!" on this server, as it is balanced for much more powerful builds.

Munchkinism and optimization do not go hand in hand, though they are often related.  It doesn't matter that the ES is not the strongest build, it is still a munchkin build due to the 1 paladin and 1 monk level.

WebShaman wrote...

Well, go take a look.  Please be aware that I will, of course, be measuring these builds along the lines of environmental criteria, where I get to set the environmental conditions, of course.

Environmental criteria doesn't matter.  Munchkin builds are ones that abuse class mechanics.

WebShaman wrote...

These are the ONLY builds that I consider munchkin, though I do understand that there are those who like to play the game in this type of environment (mostly PvP type ones).  And yes, there is quite a bit of expertise required to be able to build such creations (or at least there were, as some of the best .bics eventually got released to the public).

Those aren't Munchkin, specifically because they are not within the legal rules.  The whole point of Munchkin building is the idea of creating a build that is strictly legal but mercilessly abuses the intent of the rules.

Go look at "Pun pun the kobold" and tell me with a straight face that he isn't a Munchkin build.

Also, to pre-empt something I expect you to say, yes, there is intent within the rules.  If I recall correctly, you vehemently disagree and claim that anything strictly legal within the rules is intended.

But apologies if I'm misremembering.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:53 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Cripple means more than merely "to impair" or "to hamper."  More like "to severely impair or hamper."  As in, a normal person can run.  A person with a mild injury has his running impaired.  A person with a major injury is crippled and cannot run at all.

A crippled WM would be one with 8 Dex/8 Str and everything in Wisdom or something.
 
You do realize there are plenty of people who plan out builds, create them correctly, and the builds are still bad?  If everyone was good at creating builds there kind of wouldn't have been a need for the ECB guild.  There's a reason it's considered unusual and not part of the norm.

He didn't ask for a vegetarian pizza.  He wanted to know where he could find Munchkin builds.  This does not mean every build at that location is a Munchkin build, just that some are.  If you cannot see that important distinction, then this is completely pointless.

Not according to Dictionary.com.

Nope; would never become a WM in the first place, as it fails to meet the prereqs.

Again, mistakes happen even with planning. But purposely crippling a build does not appear to be common.

Yep; the OP asked for Munchkin and Epic builds, and that is when the debate over the term started. Again, mistakes occur, and some us are trying to clarify the difference.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

Also, to pre-empt something I expect you to say, yes, there is intent within the rules.  If I recall correctly, you vehemently disagree and claim that anything strictly legal within the rules is intended.

But apologies if I'm misremembering.

??

I can't ever remember having said that - I think perhaps Kail may have.  

What I do hold to be true, is a comparison of the evolution of the rules (earlier to later) and how some intent has been "filtered out" as new rules were introduced (like backstab to sneak attack, for example, yadda yadda yadda).

I don't propose to know the intent of the devs (well, not the current ones.  Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood I knew personally, so....)

Your definition of "munchkin" I do not accept.  The ES is NOT a munchkin build.  And quite plainly, munchkin builds are affected by environment.

BTW - a hacked .bic is possible within the framework of the NWN Engine.  And there used to be servers that catored to this type of playstyle (i.e. they were legitimate to play, even necessary, to play there).  This is very much like how you need items of a certain level to even be able to go on certain raids in WoW (which also brings us to another point, but it belongs in another thread, so I will expound on it there).

You are really digging yourself deeper here.  We are not agreeing on the same definitions, and so, we will not be able to do any type of debate, nor reach a consensus here.  

I am sure that there is nothing like the hacked .bic (and manipulated 2das) legitimate play server in WoW.  Since that is so, I think you should leave WoW out of this debate.

And as we cannot seem to agree on the definition of what is munchkin (and what is not), I suggest we leave it at that.  You have your opinion, and we have ours.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Not according to Dictionary.com.

The word comes from the meaning:

"A person or animal that is partially disabled or unable to use a limb or limbs"

Cripple is far more severe than "impair" or "hamper."  Unless you're saying that you'd say a person missing an arm is "impaired."  Maybe if you're trying to be incredibly polite, I guess, but crippling something is far worse than impairing or hampering.  Either accept that or don't, I really don't see the point in discussing the meaning of an extremely common and mainstream word.

Elhanan wrote...

Nope; would never become a WM in the first place, as it fails to meet the prereqs.

Fine.  Considered it modified to have 13 dex and 13 int.  That doesn't change my point and you know it.

Elhanan wrote...

Again, mistakes happen even with planning. But purposely crippling a build does not appear to be common.

You keep using the word purposely.  These people are not *trying* to be bad.  If I asked you to design a house, changes are that despite trying your best your design would be far worse than an actual architect's.  That's why people go to the ECB guild for help, because they know they're not nearly as good at building.

Elhanan wrote...

Yep; the OP asked for Munchkin and Epic builds, and that is when the debate over the term started. Again, mistakes occur, and some us are trying to clarify the difference.

No one in this thread has claimed there is no difference.  No one.

The subject of "discussion" is apparently whether there are *any* Munchkin builds in the ECB.

WebShaman wrote...

??

I can't ever remember having said that - I think perhaps Kail may have.

Yeah, I think you're right, it was probably Kail.  Sorry!  My mistake.

WebShaman wrote...

BTW - a hacked .bic is possible within the framework of the NWN Engine.  And there used to be servers that catored to this type of playstyle (i.e. they were legitimate to play, even necessary, to play there).  This is very much like how you need items of a certain level to even be able to go on certain raids in WoW (which also brings us to another point, but it belongs in another thread, so I will expound on it there).

I didn't say possible within the framework of the NWN Engine, I said legal within the rules.  Munchkin builds stay within the rules, they just abuse rules to increase power.

Do you not see the difference between a build that would be allowed with Enforce Legal Characters and one that wouldn't be (assuming ELC was correctly done)?

WebShaman wrote...

Your definition of "munchkin" I do not accept.  The ES is NOT a munchkin build.  And quite plainly, munchkin builds are affected by environment.

Do you think Pun Pun isn't a Munchkin build?

And if you mean that Exalted Sorceress wouldn't be a Munchkin build if the paladin level did nothing beyond granting Light Armor proficiency and giving +1 saving throws (aka, +1 max per paladin level or something), then sure.

WebShaman wrote...

You are really digging yourself deeper here.  We are not agreeing on the same definitions, and so, we will not be able to do any type of debate, nor reach a consensus here.  

And as we cannot seem to agree on the definition of what is munchkin (and what is not), I suggest we leave it at that.  You have your opinion, and we have ours.

If you don't think taking one level of monk as a Druid for the AC bonus and other "goodies" is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, if you don't think taking one level of paladin as a sorcerer for the plate armor and save bonus is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, if you don't think taking one level of rogue as a fighter to tumble dump is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, then no, we don't have anything to talk about.

Again, please remember you were the one who wanted to talk about it in the first place.  This thread could easily have remained at four posts.

WebShaman wrote...

I am sure that there is nothing like the hacked .bic (and manipulated 2das) legitimate play server in WoW.  Since that is so, I think you should leave WoW out of this debate.

I brought up WoW to show that while "Munchkin build" might be considered an insult here, being an "RPer" is an insult in WoW (and being a Munchkin would be approved of).  Whether the word is considered negative depends on the person.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par MagicalMaster, 11 septembre 2012 - 09:39 .