Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 4778806" data-attributes="member: 5890">And applied without any regards to any of it's assumptions. Lanchester's square law applies to forces that are either homogenous or large enough to be considered so. Furthermore it assumes that each member can only damage a single foe. It's completely inapplicable here except in the broadest of strokes, entirely because you've got such a huge disparity between members of your force.First: who cares? The person whom you're maligning and attacking the character of.Second: They're not. The supercharger is currently king of the heap, and the supercharger is a wizard.Nope, anyone not boosting AC has a low enough AC. As I pointed out, if I'd just wanted to push an agenda, I could have chosen something with even lower ac, or even just not gone with a wizard starting at 18 int.I don't actually think you know wizards too well.A full 3 higher because he's got 2 enhancement and one feat boosting his ac (or for the str-based ranger, 2 enhancement and 2 feats). The point was to make someone not spending many resources on defense, which it seems you've totally missed.These points are far from guaranteed. The point of the argument is that having a big disparity in defense is a liability, not that the entire party having bad defenses in the first place is.The 18 wisdom over 16 strength alone makes you a heavily CC-based fighter.It seems to me that you're taking my facts and hypotheses to be a personal attack on your character. You certainly seem to be getting upset. Please be assured that this is not so, and feel free to calm down.</blockquote>

Verification