Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 170916" data-attributes="member: 1251">Simplistic Analysis...Ok, it seems clear that those who deride the notion that thousands of low-level characters would be of consequence are still facing the paradigm of the one-on-one battle as the determinate of balance. In this case balance refers to the plausability that such an army would be fielded in the first place. Those who have actually gone through a disciplined analysis must come to the conclusion that the 'always hit on 20' rule pretty much gives value to numbers relative to levels. Regardless of what ROLE such armies would play, and i fully admit that key individuals would have greater prominence in DnD than the realworld, the fact is that they do HAVE a role, atleast within a narrow tactical sense. Again the strategic role, which is campaign-specific, might very. But the blanket statement that level-1 warriors become utterly and consistently useless at higher levels is old and misleading...</blockquote>