Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Patryn of Elvenshae" data-source="post: 6030436" data-attributes="member: 23094">Amended:The model tells us that when you're a fighter, facing melee opponents, using Parry or Protect is the best strategy.*And, given the rules on Parry / Protect, it'll probably work on ranged opponents, too.So, I don't think the test is quite as limited as you're proposing.Moreover, I'm responding to the notion that no changes should be made to the rules based on the outcome of these models, ever, as [MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] was proposing.This is exactly the sort of modeling that I hope WotC is doing, and if they aren't, then they should absolutely look at [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION]'s results and say, &quot;Hey - is this really working the way we want it to?&quot;* So far.&nbsp; Maybe additional work will suss out the usefulness of Deadly Strike or something else, but it's really hard to argue with always-available, stacking DR.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Patryn of Elvenshae, post: 6030436, member: 23094"] Amended: The model tells us that when you're a fighter, facing melee opponents, using Parry [i]or Protect[/i] is [i]the best[/i] strategy.* And, given the rules on Parry / Protect, it'll probably work on ranged opponents, too. So, I don't think the test is quite as limited as you're proposing. Moreover, I'm responding to the notion that no changes should be made to the rules based on the outcome of these models, ever, as [MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] was proposing. This is exactly the sort of modeling that I hope WotC is doing, and if they aren't, then they should absolutely look at [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION]'s results and say, "Hey - is this really working the way we want it to?" * So far. Maybe additional work will suss out the usefulness of Deadly Strike or something else, but it's really hard to argue with always-available, stacking DR. [/QUOTE]

Verification