Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

The Lawyer in the original Munchkin will not attack Thieves out of professional courtesy, and Thieves cannot still choose to fight it:

A Super Munchkin can be either 2 classes at a time, or can be a single class with none of the disadvantages. So is the Lawyer's "Will not attack" considered a disadvantage or an advantage? Can it change? A Level 1 Super-Thief with a combat level of 2 would probably prefer not to fight. But a Level 9 Super-Thief would definitely want to fight a Lawyer that he encountered when kicking down the door. Does the Super-Thief get to choose to fight it? If he does choose to fight, and then the other Munchkins manage to help the Lawyer enough to make it win, can he then decide not to fight it? If not, could he discard the Super Munchkin card and then be forced to not fight it?

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

I believe 'Won't Attack' is an advantage, which means it stays in effect.

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

Yeah, I think so, too. I know that even if you WANT to lose a fight for some strategic reason a Monster's bonus against you is still considered a disadvantage. This strikes me something like the inverse of that situation (though not exactly).

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

I think there was consideration for situations like this where the Super Munchkin can decide whether the particular ability is an advantage or a disadvantage. If the Thief has a high enough combat strength to win the fight, the Lawyers leaving would clearly be a disadvantage, as the Thief loses the potential level and the Lawyers' Treasure.

Your character always wants to win a fight, but he is winning the fight either way in this case, and I would think the next priority is to get as much loot as possible...

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

Still, it seem like it could be a slippery slope to have advantages and disadvantages be situational, since there are undoubtedly other situations where the player would consider an advantage to be a disadvantage. For instance, if you are forced to help somebody in a combat, and your Class gives THEM an advantage, that could be seen as a disadvantage, especially if you don't stand to gain anything by winning the combat, and don't stand to lose anything by losing it.

Personally, I'd prefer to have what is defined as an advantage or disadvantage be independent of the situation at hand. Though obviously I don't get a say in that decision. :-)

EDIT: Oops, just realized this thread is in 101, and therefore I'm getting WAAAY to deep in considering the implications here. Sorry. :-(

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

I wasn't sure if this was a basic question, so I wasn't sure which forum to use. Personally, I don't mind if the discussion gets complex.

I think when your Class helps you win in combat, then it's an advantage. If you personally didn't want to win that combat, too bad, the character does. But if your Class is preventing you from defeating a monster and/or winning the game, then it's a disadvantage.

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

It's neither a disadvantage or an advantage. You're still a Thief, and the Lawyer won't fight you. That you get to make a deal with cards is an advantage.

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

Alright, thanks. That makes sense, I just hadn't thought of it like that.

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

Does that mean a Halfbreed-Halfling still has to fight the Stoned Golem?

Re: Will a Lawyer attack a Super-Thief?
 

I believe so since you are still a Halfling.