| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 23:23:18
Im Trying to get a feel of weather or nbot the campaing we are running are to high powered or not. Im wondering what kind of Magic gear do you alow in your campaign. +3, +5, +10? We are running an epic campaign but stil I somtimes feel we are getting to the point where it is to much. I mean, My char. just killed Manshoon, and is now going after Szass Tam. And after that the "Nether Scrolls"
Could someone give a short discription of what level of power you rund in your home campaing
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 07:58:22
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
My very first D&D game was with a group of guys older than me, who I only knew slightly at the time. I was a freshman in high school--13 years old--and they were, I think, all juniors and seniors. They were the only people I knew of who played the game in my small Kentucky town, and I finagled an invitation. I had the basic boxed set--which I'd purchased after watching the Mazes & Monsters made-for-tv movie--and rolled up a character before my mom drove me into town: Tybalt the Pious, 1st level cleric of Thor.
Well, they were playing AD&D, of course, but they didn't really seem to mind that I had a basic character, and that it was written out on a sheet of typing paper upon which I'd carefully traced the sample character from my red box. Since they were all playing five or six characters EACH, they'd developed a way of winnowing their character sheets down to 3x5 index cards. Every character had psionics, and every character had super-duper weaponry. I looked at the equipment list on the back of one card and saw listed, right between "+5 Holy Avenger" and "10' pole," the entry "adult green dragon." Which I imagine is a pretty handy piece of equipment for many situations.
So we went in to the steading of the hill giant chief, somebody opened a door, and here came a bunch of giants. The thirty or so other party members did some kind of psionic plane shift, leaving good old Tybalt with his footman's mace, bound for Valhalla.
Brings a tear to my eye.
 Sounds like Tybalt was in just a wee bit over his head. Seriously: the reason I'm responding to your post is that I love the fact that "Mazes and Monsters" got you into D&D. In my movie ratings, that one is right at the bottom of the barrel, along with "the" D&D movie. Yes, I thought that the Star Wars prequels were better. Either way, it's good to know that BADD is effectively defunct now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothered_About_Dungeons_and_Dragons
Nicolai: I'm with the vast majority of posters here. As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right. For myself and my group, we can have fun at just about any level, as long as we're being challenged and we like the ruleset and setting. I've played 1E and 2E Greyhawk, 2E Dark Sun, 2E and 3E Ravenloft, and 1E/2E/3E FR. No setting has been as popular with me or my players as FR, regardless of the level of play, and nothing about the new edition of the game or setting appeals to any of us beyond a couple of the smaller rules changes. If you had to give our game an edition number based on what we're using from which edition, it would probably be 3.6P (because we've integrated some of the changes in the Pathfinder Beta as well).
Game On!  |
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 16 Oct 2008 : 00:24:12
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Well my char. is realy bad ass. The spells I have researched makes him a mage killer without equal. When you hurl maximized Issac's Missile Storms( From NWN) at your target damaging 240 each rund who can stand that. Also I have a spell almost as powerful a protection as Srinshee's Spellshift. I have fought other lvl 25 mages... same result! they just dont break my protection charm often enough. and then it is only a matter of time before they fall. Sadly.
And lastly. Our DM is realy good at giving us challenges. and an interesting campaign. But one on one with a wizard or sorcere... ill take down a lvl 30 I would amaging! Thats why im going aster Szass Tam. NO BIGGY! 
If I was your DM I would make it alot harder for you, like have you fight in a wild magic area or even a dead magic area or have your spellbook stolen or something. This would make te game more challenging for your character.
Anyway I don't really like playing epic level, my campaigns usually stop at level 15 max because after level 10 the characters are getting messy. A few weeks ago I wanted to check all the character sheets and there were so many mistakes I didn't know where to start.. the barbarian/fighter had a way too high attack bonus, the cleric/paladin forgot about 10 ranks... those kinda things. |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 01 Oct 2008 : 23:50:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
After playing for thirty yuears, I finally allowed the PCs to reach level 2.
Sheesh, what kind of Monty Hall DM are you?
Heh, anyone else remember that word for describing DMs from way back when? |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 01 Oct 2008 : 23:29:51
True... sometimes its a walk in the park, but most of the time we know we face grave danger, but however dificult and incounter our DM throws at us, it happens sometimes that we run throug it... and sometimes we get owned! But all in all its pretty evenly mached. But yes... I totally agree, that when things get to be to easy, its looses its luster! |
| Pandora |
Posted - 29 Sep 2008 : 09:06:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I agree with Wooly & the others, as long as you're having fun!
Thats the whole point about gaming, BUT if things are too easy you are missing out on the uneasy feeling in your stomach and that - at least for me - is a huge part of fun, because you will be much more excited after having defeated a tough opponent than an easy one. So I always argue against "soft play" for the sake of even greater fun. |
| Brunswick |
Posted - 27 Sep 2008 : 18:20:17
Just out of curiosity Nicolai, have you spoken to you DM about this? Maybe s/he doesnt know that things are going so easy for you?  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 13:53:09
I agree with Wooly & the others, as long as you're having fun!
On a side note, however, when you're looking at El's stats in 3.X, please keep in mind that his ability scores are without any magic item bonuses.  |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 24 Sep 2008 : 00:05:10
I know that he would, but I dont think my DM had thought of that. And thats the problem. But in our campaign one of his clones is dead non the less. But I wish I had not faced and killed him because who is the most wanted of the Zhents now??? I think me, and I was looking forward to less battle and more roleplaying, but now I have to fight off assasinations weekly now... Jesus I was stupid! And thats having an inteligence score of 34 . Dumsass... he he... I guess thats what you get for messing with Manshoon!
|
| Apex |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 15:34:50
Let's put it this way your have more munchkinism in your campaign than was in the Wizard of Oz. It sounds like the days of yore when people used the Deities and Demigods book (the original one) as the MM3. A good DM (well, a good DM would have never let you research any of those spells or "walk in on" Manshoon), but a good DM would have had Manshoon have essentially your protection spell up and then blast you with his version of your turbo-charged disintegrate spell (after all, Manshoon is smart and would have likely thought of similar spell ideas in his 200 years of life). |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 13:44:50
I totally agree that in the case of Manshoon it was my DM and not Manshoon who was not thinking. And thats why I asked in the first place, couse it seemed wrong to me, that he was so easy. And well I hope in the future that NPCs, in the event that we face them, are much more dificult.
But yes we are having a lot of fun, and we are challenged almost every time we face somthing, which we do less and less but stil when we do, its a rare sight to see everyone walking out of the fight!
Well Thanks for all comments and basic feelings, it puts things in perspective and thats what I wanted with this! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 05:54:25
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
He he... great story!
I think we have talked enough about $ed and 3ed, so that story has run its course.
Just so we are clear, im not playing a lvl 80 wiz. Only a lvl 22!
When one combines the right feats, and spells (Canon) and stats one will find that one can build and extremely powerful character. And if I look en Elminsters stats, well only his hitpoints are higher than mine, and his str. and cha. score. In all other scores mine are higher. He has skills i dont and so forth, but man vs. man I kick his arse! ANd that is not counting my own spells. This is sad but true. He has thou the Chosen template and that will most likely save him, but other than that; I cant se him taking my down. I know my DM re writes the NPCs most of the time so that they reprisent a "higher" power but sooner or later we will become stronger! And what im trying to say is that I think we are getting there.
But one must also know that my char is only this potent against other spellcasters, figters and especially rogues kills him quite quikly. And thats why Manshoon died or his clone died. Apparently he was so statled, and angry that I got to him that he stayed in the fight not realy thinking. If this is how he would act "in real life" im not sure, but thats how it happened! So... Thats that.
But do all of you feel that our DM has done somthing completely wrong when I as a lvl 22 can be so powerful???
It's all a matter of opinion, really. You do seem to be having fun, and that's the most important part.
Me, I'd not enjoy that same game. For one thing, I enjoy a challenge. For another thing, if the DM was sticking to canon portrayals of these NPCs and playing them with some intelligence, then you'd be getting your butt handed to you, not the other way around. (Pre-4E) Canon is important to me, so if a book -- or several books -- tells me that Ba'ab the Mage is very sneaky and powerful, then I'd be disappointed if he wasn't played that way by the DM. I've had a lot of gamers over the years go on and on about how their characters are so powerful, and can easily defeat this, that, and the other epic thing, and I'm always thinking to myself "Not if I was running it".
By my personal standards (and keep in mind, what is wanted out of the game is different for every gamer, and can even vary per campaign or character), you are powergaming, and that's simply not something that holds any interest for me now. It did once, but that was long ago. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 02:39:01
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
But do all of you feel that our DM has done somthing completely wrong when I as a lvl 22 can be so powerful???
Nicolai, it is clear to me you are having a wonderful time in your game--so no, I at least don't thing you are doing anything wrong. |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 02:35:18
He he... great story!
I think we have talked enough about $ed and 3ed, so that story has run its course.
Just so we are clear, im not playing a lvl 80 wiz. Only a lvl 22!
When one combines the right feats, and spells (Canon) and stats one will find that one can build and extremely powerful character. And if I look en Elminsters stats, well only his hitpoints are higher than mine, and his str. and cha. score. In all other scores mine are higher. He has skills i dont and so forth, but man vs. man I kick his arse! ANd that is not counting my own spells. This is sad but true. He has thou the Chosen template and that will most likely save him, but other than that; I cant se him taking my down. I know my DM re writes the NPCs most of the time so that they reprisent a "higher" power but sooner or later we will become stronger! And what im trying to say is that I think we are getting there.
But one must also know that my char is only this potent against other spellcasters, figters and especially rogues kills him quite quikly. And thats why Manshoon died or his clone died. Apparently he was so statled, and angry that I got to him that he stayed in the fight not realy thinking. If this is how he would act "in real life" im not sure, but thats how it happened! So... Thats that.
But do all of you feel that our DM has done somthing completely wrong when I as a lvl 22 can be so powerful??? |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:53:25
My very first D&D game was with a group of guys older than me, who I only knew slightly at the time. I was a freshman in high school--13 years old--and they were, I think, all juniors and seniors. They were the only people I knew of who played the game in my small Kentucky town, and I finagled an invitation. I had the basic boxed set--which I'd purchased after watching the Mazes & Monsters made-for-tv movie--and rolled up a character before my mom drove me into town: Tybalt the Pious, 1st level cleric of Thor.
Well, they were playing AD&D, of course, but they didn't really seem to mind that I had a basic character, and that it was written out on a sheet of typing paper upon which I'd carefully traced the sample character from my red box. Since they were all playing five or six characters EACH, they'd developed a way of winnowing their character sheets down to 3x5 index cards. Every character had psionics, and every character had super-duper weaponry. I looked at the equipment list on the back of one card and saw listed, right between "+5 Holy Avenger" and "10' pole," the entry "adult green dragon." Which I imagine is a pretty handy piece of equipment for many situations.
So we went in to the steading of the hill giant chief, somebody opened a door, and here came a bunch of giants. The thirty or so other party members did some kind of psionic plane shift, leaving good old Tybalt with his footman's mace, bound for Valhalla.
Brings a tear to my eye. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:38:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Wow, Skeptic. You have quite possibly the worst group I've heard of if that's what's going on. I've never seen abuse of rules on that level and on a regular basis.
That's tales from highschool (92-97) and not necesseraly from groups I was part of.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:35:49
Wow, Skeptic. You have quite possibly the worst group I've heard of if that's what's going on. I've never seen abuse of rules on that level and on a regular basis.
Is Nicolai in your group? (Just kidding, Nicolai!) |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:31:14
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
when talking 'calvinball', it is a game where the rules are made up as they go along, with each new rule either enhancing or negating a previous rule to the benefit of the individual player. I've never pictured AD&D/3.xE as being anywhere near this chaos.
That's what I'm talking about, and your damn lucky if you haven't see the horrors of AD&D 2E players doing it.
More than often, it came from players abusing a DM who couldn't stand up and when he did, it was for the worse .
"I'm tired of your gold dragon 20th level paladin, while you were gone, a meteor hit him dead !" .
3.xE tried to reduce it with rules to cover every situation. We got the bag of rats and the bucket of snails.
4E is trying to do it by focusing the game (encounters = combat or skill challenge, no rules outside of encounters except rituals, etc.) and by giving back some power to the DM. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:21:37
How about we all call the various novels, games, supplements, articles and, yeah, even editions by the names they were given by those who made them, and assume good will on the part of the creators in the absence of any evidence to the contrary? Of course we don't have to like all the work (or any of it), and we have every right to ask questions about why the work was ordered by the owners.
The people who do the writing, designing, painting, and mapmaking, though--those folks are a lot like us, y'know? Mostly in it for the stories, and just trying to make creditable contributions to this fictive world we all love within the parameters they've been given. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 19:20:52
Sorry, if I mistook the tone of the message, but when talking 'calvinball', it is a game where the rules are made up as they go along, with each new rule either enhancing or negating a previous rule to the benefit of the individual player. I've never pictured AD&D/3.xE as being anywhere near this chaos. In fact, the only gaming system I can think of being like that are the 'war mini' games like Warhammer where every Codex that came out would 'best' the previous codex. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 18:58:20
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Please refrain from using 'Calvinball' as a derogatory term for AD&D
I'm not using "calvinball" as a derogatory term for AD&D, I'm only saying that this era was famous for it's "calvinball" style of play.
Nicolai showed here that it was around in 3.xE as well, and yeah I think it will be less common in 4E, but that's only one aspect of the game.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 18:30:53
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
All these tools were used to play Calvinball in the AD&D era.
Okay, third strike, Skeptic.
Please refrain from using 'Calvinball' as a derogatory term for AD&D, else I might start calling 4th Edition 'World of Minicraft'. We know you like 4th and you know some of us don't.
I know that we've thrown Shattered Realms, Wasbro and other terms around, and not always in the nicest way, but it's more a way of differentiating the new realms from the old or a acronym to describe the publishing company. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 18:07:26
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
In my current (4E) campaign, which I DM, the PCs made second level after their fourth four hour play session (these days playing from 1 to 5 every other Sunday afternoon is a lot more doable ).
4E try to make the D&D experience more uniform across groups, some consider it's awful, others that it's great. Stopping the game at level 30 is part of this design approach.
No spell research rules in another.
Miscellanous spells as rituals, and limited Magic items are other.
All these tools were used to play Calvinball in the AD&D era. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 17:15:19
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
If you've got an 80th level character, you might be powergaming.
Yeah, I kind of blinked at that myself. Everybody has a different style, of course, and everybody should play the way they want, but the highest level I've ever managed to get to with a character was a 16th level wizard in first edition Greyhawk. If I remember correctly that was achieved through the twice a week kind of marathon play sessions you can do as a teenager, and it took almost four "real world" years.
In my current (4E) campaign, which I DM, the PCs made second level after their fourth four hour play session (these days playing from 1 to 5 every other Sunday afternoon is a lot more doable ).
|
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 16:21:41
I realy think it is very important that high powerred NPC should be a challenge if indeed it is someone like Zsazz or Elminster. But if your character is level 80 it probably not gonna be much of a fight!
But anyhow, nobody should be impossible... IMO! And wiht the right combinations and rolls, everything is possible! |
| kysus |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 16:16:06
Yes, there is a way to make spells to out perform 9th level spells, it would be epic level magic. Even a prismatic wall has its weakness, u can take it out one layer at a time or use a mord's disjunction, usually it would take a spell of higher level to negate the effects of a lower level spell. In the case of the mord's disjunction spell from what i understand it designed to be the end all spell as far as negating enchants in a normal non epic D&D game and in a way works outside the normal rules of spells in order to equal out the fact some spells cant be negated with dispel magic or antimagic shield. Usually i find the best thing to do is to test these spells out first using premade characters like the ones in the dm guide as well as compare them to similiar spells of the same level. Like if u used that aurora spell with another mage fighting u how much more different would it turn out when he is able to shrug off most of your spells your throwing at him. So the best advice i could give including from what happened in the fight with dendar is just to reavaluerate each of your home made spells compare them to other spells and test them out in different situations using generic characters to see how they preform, see what drawbacks they have for the amount of power they give u.
As far as very old Npcs not being surprised, i wasnt saying that, they very well could be surprised if the players were inventive enough in coming up with a way of dealing with them but what i was getting at is that a frontal brute force approach isnt going to get the players anywhere in a fight like that except maybe alot of losses and if they survive the experience of "i guess i know not to do that again". |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 14:27:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There is nothing at all wrong with wishing to oppose powerful NPCs. It's just that published lore indicates that fighting these guys is anything but easy, even for some of those who are more powerful. And just about everyone one of these folks will not only be smart enough to leave a losing fight, but they will have the means to do so.
And besides, I would think that those who wish to fight the powerful and famous NPCs would at least want it to be a challenge? If it's a cakewalk, what's there to brag about? |
| Icelander |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 04:42:04
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Doing a 2nd level or 12th level version of Szass would probably ruin the experience for all the players around the table if they have some interest in the setting.
The idea is that they shouldn't ask for thing that will ruin the setting experience for them. If they don't care about the setting, there is no point in wanting to fight Szass in the beginning.
Well, I think that people in positions of power in large organisations are more difficult to defeat than those without such a power base. As such, Manshoon and Szass Tam are far more dangerous than even their level would suggest and I would caution any players seeking to antagonise them of this fact.
That's not to say that I haven't run campaigns where the players have made enemies of both of them, but at least the NPCs were presented in a way that made sense within the game world.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
The PCs can certainly meet NPCs far more or far less powerful during their adventures, I ask only DMs not to trap the players in situation where they have to guess if it's appropriate to fight or not without any relevant information.
Well, in a situation where the characters have no idea of the power of their foes or perhaps even their identity, prudence would indicate that discretion is the better part of valour.
Anyone wishing to live a long life as an adventurer should avoid fights when he doesn't have some information that leads him to conclude that the reward matches the risk.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Is LoTR simplistic and naive ? Because I know many simulationist RPG (games which put emphasis on game world consistency) where Frodon wouldn't have reached Mt. Doom.
But Frodo did reach Mt. Doom. Therefore, any simulation where he doesn't must be a flawed simulation.
And reaching Mt. Doom didn't mean that the protagnist personally defeated every single enemy. It didn't mean that evil disappeared or that all the harm done was reversed. It didn't even mean that Frodo could live happily ever after, precisely because LotR isn't naive about the effects of violence on the person who experiences it (and deals it out).
That being said, novels aren't roleplaying games. And while we may enjoy some tales while knowing that they'll end with the good guys winning, the same doesn't necessarily go for playing a game where there is no possibility of failure.
I've had as much fun with campaigns where the players failed to save the princess (artifact/kingdom/McGuffin) as ones where they succeeded. The play's the thing, not the victories racked up during it.
|
| Skeptic |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 04:27:14
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
If a 2nd level (or 12th, 22nd, etc.) adventurer expressed a desire to fight Szass Tam, I wouldn't create a level appropriate version of him for that player. I'd notify the player that his character was planning something that would most likely get him killed and then leave it up to him whether he wanted to proceed.
Like I've said before, I don't believe that it's necessarily good for either the players or the GM if the campaign world is designed simply to provide 'level appropriate challenges' for the PCs. For one thing, it begs the question of why they bother to advance in level if the foes they face always stay about as dangerous. For another, it tends to play havoc with the interal consistency of the world, which bothers all roleplayers I've met.
In fact, only in the kind of simplistic, naive literature that represents the worst of fantsy fiction has to offer can the protagonist expect to vanquish all evil from the world in the space of a trilogy or so.
Doing a 2nd level or 12th level version of Szass would probably ruin the experience for all the players around the table if they have some interest in the setting.
The idea is that they shouldn't ask for thing that will ruin the setting experience for them. If they don't care about the setting, there is no point in wanting to fight Szass in the beginning.
The PCs can certainly meet NPCs far more or far less powerful during their adventures, I ask only DMs not to trap the players in situation where they have to guess if it's appropriate to fight or not without any relevant information.
Is LoTR simplistic and naive ? Because I know many simulationist RPG (games which put emphasis on game world consistency) where Frodon wouldn't have reached Mt. Doom.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 04:08:00
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
PCs are the protagonists and if the players are interested in fighting famous villains they have read about in novels, it is certainly a good thing for a DM to come up with a "level appropriate" fight with such NPCs.
If a 2nd level (or 12th, 22nd, etc.) adventurer expressed a desire to fight Szass Tam, I wouldn't create a level appropriate version of him for that player. I'd notify the player that his character was planning something that would most likely get him killed and then leave it up to him whether he wanted to proceed.
Like I've said before, I don't believe that it's necessarily good for either the players or the GM if the campaign world is designed simply to provide 'level appropriate challenges' for the PCs. For one thing, it begs the question of why they bother to advance in level if the foes they face always stay about as dangerous. For another, it tends to play havoc with the interal consistency of the world, which bothers all roleplayers I've met.
If a player in a game completely without magic or supernatural powers wants his character to be able to jump off a cliff and fly under his own power, I don't see it as the GM's job to provide him with a 'level appropriate challenge' to do so. The GM can simply allow the player to find out about gravity the hard way.
In the same way, if a player wants his promising, but young, wizard to be able to face wizards who have several centuries on him in experience and possess resources several orders of magnitude over anything he can access... I don't see the problem with allowing him to find out that he lives in a world where actions have consequences.
Being the protagonist of a story, even a fantasy story, doesn't mean that someone is the most powerful being in the world that the story is set in. Frodo couldnīt walk up to Sauron, flip him the finger and expect him to be a 'level appropriate challenge'. Bilbo knew damn well that facing down Smaug with his sword would only lead to a short career as a tasty morsel.
In fact, only in the kind of simplistic, naive literature that represents the worst of fantsy fiction has to offer can the protagonist expect to vanquish all evil from the world in the space of a trilogy or so. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Sep 2008 : 04:04:38
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Why is it not just possible that a PC can become more powerful that any NPC???
No one is saying that PCs can't be more powerful than NPCs. Indeed, a great many NPCs are low level, and it's entirely reasonable for PCs to become more powerful than them.
What people are saying is that many of the high-level NPCs are either exceedingly powerful, exceedingly good at staying alive, and/or both, and that defeating them should not be a cakewalk. I apologize if I'm reading you wrong, but many of your posts seem to indicate that these iconic NPCs have indeed been easy for your character to defeat -- and that's the part we have a problem with.
There is nothing at all wrong with wishing to oppose powerful NPCs. It's just that published lore indicates that fighting these guys is anything but easy, even for some of those who are more powerful. And just about everyone one of these folks will not only be smart enough to leave a losing fight, but they will have the means to do so.
One more thing: levels are not the only way to judge power. Anyone, given enough time and resources (including brainpower), can be a challenge to a vastly more powerful foe. |
|
|
