The problem here: A 10th-level PC fights a 10th-level NPC with the same amount of gear and defeats him. Now the PC has twice as much gear...
That's the problem with basing the amount of gear a character has worth a damn on "wealth by level", which would be upset by this.
Hmm... I would say its more a problem of doing what your suggesting. Since the game isn't set up for a mirror match.
I'm going to have to say I've decided that's not a design problem but a problem that "Elennsar" has with the design. Its nice to know how much a character is expected to have at a certain level.
There are related design flaws... like gear dependance in general, but what you suggest isn't one of them.
Espcially because of "The mirror match isn't possible.
Hardly. I might choose to Bull Rush Bob, I might choose to attack Bob (vanilla attack), etc. Those things (plus the variables from the d20) mean that it could go either way, even though we are exactly identical.
You're then optimizing the fight on a small scale. Using combat options and the such.
Even at that...
So you bullrush Bob ... you then make an opposed check. Bob defeats you.
No bullrush has occured, bob has the same stats statisitically you have no real advantage.
Take away the differences and you may as well just flip a coin you're basically doing that for advantage.
Any randomizer will do at that point.
You have all the same stats etc... so you have the same options... so you each have a 50/50 chance of winning that battle.
If your bring things like I bullrush him etc into it, assuming vanilla attacks then it goes back to the math or you're using the enviornment, but every advantage you really have will come from "Luck".
No, I am setting up a rubric where an NPC of equal level, very similar stats, etc to Galadedhel is actually his equal, not his inferior.
That adding a "N" to "PC" turns a character from star to mook is miserable design. There are plenty of mooks out there. There are plenty of superiors (at least at any given level) out there. And there should be NPCs who are equal to the PCs
.
You seem to be having a problem with the fact that the PC's are supposed to be superior to NPC's, well El really there are very few matches between equals anywhere, I dont' know where you're coming from with this line of thought.
I just hope your not Dm'ing for anyone who doesn't understand your issues with the game. As I said before a match between perfect equals comes down to luck.
I think what you're suggesting is miserable design, too, in that case.
My perception is that you have a problem with optimizing on some levels, as you have an issue being able to "challenge" pc's based on what you said in the "What you hate about D&D" thread.
This is a problem with your Dm'ing or rather your lack of game understanding in being unable to find balance or the nebulous thing that passes for balance in Rpg's in general.
Of course, this has moved entirely off topic. The point of the matter that I intended to make, and will stick to in this thread come hell or high water, is that Galahad or Conan are overpowered. They are not balanced PCs. They're a whole PC group in one character.
So... basically you're doing this:
.
This goes into that whole thing where you say "You're not listening to me"
Consider what that means to the rest of us when you say things like that.
"Will stick to in this thread come hell or high water"
Basically even if we provide evidence to the contrary of what you believe you'll ignore regardless.
ALMOST, sounds like the church guys who used to try you for heresey if you said the world was round.
You have to consider at some point even your basic assumptions might be wrong.
But if you're going to defend something do the death so to speak, regardless of what the rest of us say then you truly are deserving of that neg fu score.
.....................
For the rest of us...
Conan is a poor example... but lets take the Conan the barbarian movie. Most have seen it doesn't requier being a howard scholar.
Conan in the movie needed help. He had a party. The only thing that made conan special was that his was the story we follow, he may have had an 18 str... but note the fact of what happened when he ventured off alone.
Captured
Beaten
Crucified.
He was tied to the "Tree of woe" and had to be rescued by his companions, and brought back to life by the shaman.
He seems better than everyone else but really a lot what he really did only seems special cause you're following his story. Looking at it from the perspective of Subotai the Archer and Subotai looks impressive too.
As well as the Valerica who becomes a Valkyrie.
The argument that Conan is a party by himself is bullshit.
.............
Gallahad.
Now I'm gonna be honest here. I am not a student of authrian legend but if you look at the knights of the round table overall...
The all had some fucking superpower or skill or another I wiki'ed that shit.
In the context of Knights of the round, most of them are about equal except Arthur "who is the main PC given an artifact sword and Lancelot who really whoops everyones ass in his intro because he is fighting them on an arched bridge, "terrain advantage". Not that he wasn't better than anyone of them individually but they all had something that made them special.
Further it wasn't a D&D group it was a story which has limited bearing on a game
Why I point these things out is to show that even in the context of people yelling "overpowered" most of them don't know what the fuck they're talking about and are making over emotional claims with little research or mechanical expertise to back up the conclusions.
Though... dont' take my word for it.
Test the conclusions yourselves.
The scientific Method and theory checking do actually work...
