Storm Raven said:
No, it is that the test used silly criteria. For example, in the barbarian vs. archer contest, the barbarian was held to be at a disadvantage because he would have to use his fists in close combat, while the archer would use his short sword. This is stupid. Assuming that a 12th level barbarian can't even carry around a normal dagger or shortsword, let alone cheap (compared to his total wealth) masterwork versions of these weapons is just idiotic. It skews the results, badly.
The barbarian, as published, doesn't have a light weapon. No one here wrote that character. Even if you throw the extra weapon to him (not that cheap considering NPC wealth) I don't believe you would see that much better result. Best case, Barbarian wins initive and disarms the archer: 14.5% x 85% = 12.3% chance of his success. That is assuming the archer doesn't have an extra bow and can't wait out the Barbarian's rage/haste.
Storm Raven said:
Assuming that the PCs weapons are invulnerable to sunder because he has access to a raft of greater magic weapon spells, but the opponent cannot is also stupid.
PCs almost always work in groups. NPCs don't. There are any number of published encounters with only one NPC. The ground rules were set before AI posted his combats, why didn't you say something then?
Storm Raven said:
It is assuming the PC has access to a bunch of temporary (external) resources that you deny to the opponent.
If the NPC had all the friends in the world, they wouldn't be standard challenges. On the other hand, an archer traveling with a cleric and a wizard is common.
Storm Raven said:
Using "stock" NPCs from the DMG and then not putting any thought at all into how they operate is a poor test of any character's abilities.
They are standard challenges. As standard as you are ever going to find. And AI did give the NPCs decent tatics: buff spells on the casters, decent spellcasting choices, melee types that do more than just run up and hit the archer.
Storm Raven said:
These sorts of stupid elements show up in the "test", which makes them entirely invalid as a test.
You sure like the word "stupid". I think you just can not match this kind of combat effectiveness with a melee character and complaining because of it.
Storm Raven said:
How many individuals have you found who don't carry a light weapon around (PC or NPC)?
Most published NPCs I have seen. Most of the NPCs from the DMG. Would you like me to look through enemies and allies to verify this?
Storm Raven said:
How many NPCs does your party encounter who are exactly like the dumbed down versions found in the DMG?
It is a standard. If melee is as good as you think it is, this should be just as much to your benefit. And I have used and seen used DMG NPCs on several occasions.
Storm Raven said:
I think the answers to those questions will explain why the test is invalid.
No one has said this is a perfect test, but it is by far the most fair compareson so far. Propose a better set of opponents, or use the "weakness" of the oppents to prove melee is a better option.
You lose the compareson, so you call it invalid. AI should take your point about the barbarian, but most of the rest of what you have said is just petulance.