[quote="alphathegreat"]This is a formalization of an argument I've made before, and I feel it's time to make it formal so it'll be easier to reference in the future.
My apologies if this is redundant(my search-fu isn't so strong, but I didn't find any threads that have already made this official).
The Munchkin Fallacy,
A common 4e Character Optimization mistake.
It shows up a lot. Many of us have seen it, many of us have committed it from time to time.
The Munchkin Fallacy: "I can because the rules don't say I can't."
This is the simplest form, but it shows up in more subtle forms.
More accurately,you commit the Munchkin Fallacy when you interpret a rule based on something that is not said(or the fact that it is not said), and claiming it to be RAW.
PHB, pg. 11 wrote:Three Basic Rules
In addition to the core mechanic, three principles are at the heart of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Many other rules are based on these assumptions.
Simple Rules, Many Exceptions
Every class, race, feat, power, and monster in the D&D game lets you break the rules in some way. These can be very minor ways: Most characters don’t know how to use longbows, but every elf does. These exceptions can also appear in very significant ways: A swing with a sword normally does a few points of damage, but a high-level fighter can use a power that can fell multiple monsters in a single blow. All these game elements are little ways of breaking the rules—and most of the books published for the D&D game are full of these game elements.
Specific Beats General
If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins. For example, a general rule states that you can’t use a daily power when you charge. But if you have a daily power that says you can use it when you
charge, the power’s specific rule wins. It doesn’t mean that you can use any daily power when you charge, just that one.
Second, the logic:
1. Assume that the purpose of the game system is to simulate combat and critical situations in a fictional setting, such that the players can direct their characters to take actions that are outside the experience and abilities of the players themselves, but within the experience and abilities of the fictional characters they control. For aspects of life that the rules do not attempt to cover, assume that it functions in the same way as the normal world(ie, the rules don't have to tell you that what goes up must come down, nor that your character needs to use the latrine sometime).
2. Given this assumption, the first fundamental principle makes it clear that powers 'beyond the norm'–including the ability to swing a sword accurately–must be given by a rule. Player characters are empowered by the rules that let them take a PC Class, and the powers that those classes give them. If there were no such rules, no PC would be any more skilled than the commoners we strive to save.
In other words, if there isn't a rule that says you can do something 'beyond the norm,' you can't without DM discretion(thus leaving RAW territory).
The example given in the above-quoted text makes this clear("most characters don't know how to use longbows, but every elf does" and "A swing with a sword normally does a few points of damage, but a high-level fighter can use a power…[etc.]"
3. Adding in "Specific Beats General" places these 'exceptions' in a hierarchy, formalizing the assumption of "Simple Rules, Many Exceptions" that if there is a rule that provides exception to another, the exception takes precedence. Rules conflicts occur in three basic cases: 1)The wording provided does not cover a given instance, 2)The wording of the specific or general rule is vague or confusing, 3)It is unclear in exactly what way the specific rule alters the general one(or this alteration contradicts the RAI or common sense).
4. We are supposed to follow the two primary principles in an effort to reconcile such conflicts when they occur.
Variations on this fallacy include:
1. Using parallels to assume a rule. For example, the statement "both the Warlock's infernal pact and star pact have inherent limitations on how their boons stack, therefore Fey Pact must as well" commits a variation of the Munchkin Fallacy, by assuming that because a parallel portion of text works a particular way, the other portion must work the same way. This doesn't mean the speaker is wrong, it just means that his statement is insufficient to judge the RAW(though it may be helpful in determining RAI).
2. Reading between the lines.
3. Being unsatisfied with the phrasing of the rule. This is a result of committing both a Munchkin Fallacy and a Straw Man fallacy. For example, regarding Warlock Pact at-wills, a person might say "the general rules uses the word "choose." Because the Eldritch Pact text does not also use the word "choose," clearly the at-will given by Eldritch Pact is not one of the two at-wills given by the general rules." The straw man is setting up the word "choose" and refusing to accept alternative wording. The Munchkin Fallacy consists of assuming that because the Pact wording does not specify it's the same at-will power, it means a different at-will power in addition to the ones you get normally…a leap of logic not necessarily justified(*note, there may be other rules that make the speaker's case, but the one given is insufficient).
In practice, the analysis given earlier has lead me to a very important conclusion:
–When attempting to determine the RAW when rules conflict arises, give priority to the interpretation that follows both the Specific and the General rules.
*However*
The general rule, which states that you gain a Daily Slot of a particular level at given points in your character's development, is not actually contradicted by the spellbook rule! There is no language in the Wizard description that states that the general rule no longer applies, so we must first give priority to any reading that would allow us to follow both the general rule of character development and the specific rule of how spellbooks function. On examination of the wording, we find that we can follow both the specific and general rule by interpreting them thusly:
A wizard gets daily powers at every level, just as every other character does. However, because he has a spellbook he is allowed to inscribe two such powers into the book. Every day, he may choose one or the other of those two powers to put in the appropriate level daily slot.
Every other interpretation either breaks the specific rule, or breaks the general rule. Only one interpretation(which, fortunately, appears to be RAI as well) actually allows us to follow both the General and Specific.
If it were not possible to reconcile the two, the specific rule would of course trump and wizards really would be able to memorize any spell in any level daily slot.
The above example demonstrates well the point: while Specific beats General, the Specific doesn't necessarily invalidate the general.
This leads to the final variation of the Munchkin Fallacy, and the one I think may be most important:
4. If a rules interpretation unnecessarily ignores either the specific or the general rule, it is committing the Munchkin Fallacy.
In short, try to follow as many rules as possible, working from specific back to general. If following the specific rule means there is no way to follow the general rule, then the specific trumps. However, if it is possible to follow both, do so. To do otherwise is to commit the Munchkin Fallacy.
-Many of the listed examples of the Munchkin Fallacy are still valid for judging RAI(Rules As Intended).
-The 3.5e books do not contain the language given as my basis for this Fallacy, and as such the Munchkin Fallacy is unofficial and only really exists as a function or practical concerns(in which case the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization are a better guide anyway).
-In Theoretical Optimization, committing the Munchkin Fallacy is actually encouraged, as TO has an entirely different goal.
-In matters of Practical Optimization, the RAW is often irrelevant. Committing the Munchkin Fallacy is never a good reason for an argument to be dismissed: sometimes the interpretation given is just good ol' common sense(as in the debate over the vagueness of Warlock at-wills: no one believes giving Warlocks 4 at-wills is practical or even usable, but it may well be RAW)
-Finally, as with all fallacies, just because an argument commits the Munchkin Fallacy doesn't mean it's WRONG, it just means that the given argument is flawed and needs better support to fly.
[/quote]