Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 2680720" data-attributes="member: 752">Oh, but I do. However, I also understand that average damage per hit isn't &quot;extraneous&quot;. Do you understand that? &nbsp; The 0.5 comes from the average of 12345678910 . At no point do you &quot;round down&quot; anything. And like I have told you repeatedly now, &quot;assuming they all hit&quot; is not a helpful assumption.&nbsp;I said to you that wielding two Small greataxes was &quot;not a good idea&quot;. You disagreed. I told you why it was a bad idea. You disagreed. I seconded your suggestion to play an orc though.(<a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2677839&amp;postcount=10" target="_blank">Reminder</a>.)&nbsp;&nbsp; What made you think I didn't believe that Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters?Here's quote from the post where you first introduced your examples (the paragraph starting with the &quot;lesson to be learned&quot; from the examples) :&nbsp; I take it you've changed your mind? Since you make no attempt to refute my posted proofs, or even acknowledge them, I'll assume that you now agree that: a) Wielding two Small greataxes is a bad idea (like I said) andb) Attack bonuses are, as a rule, more valuable than equivalent damage bonuses (like I said). Good. Glad to have that settled. In return I'll &quot;agree&quot; that (like I said) orcs make good fighters.&nbsp;I am trying to understand how you think. When you posted examples in the post where you loudly disagreed with my explanation for why wielding two Small greataxes was a bad idea, you intended to show that Str 14 orcs can deal more damage than Str 10 humans. Even with a sub-optimal choice of weapons and fighting style. Is that accurate?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Where is all this &quot;human&quot; talk coming from? Your &quot;orc build&quot; is inferior to an &quot;orc build&quot; with a two-handed greataxe wielder and an &quot;orc build&quot; with a two-weapon handaxe wielder. That's not my idea of &quot;quite optimal&quot;, which is what I made clear in my very first reply to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 2680720, member: 752"] Oh, but I do. However, I also understand that average damage per hit isn't "extraneous". Do [I]you [/I] understand that? The 0.5 comes from the average of 12345678910 . At no point do you "round down" anything. And like I have told you repeatedly now, "assuming they all hit" is not a helpful assumption. I said to you that wielding two Small greataxes was "not a good idea". You disagreed. I told you why it was a bad idea. You disagreed. I seconded your suggestion to play an orc though.([URL=http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2677839&postcount=10]Reminder[/URL].) What made you think I didn't believe that Str 14 fighters can do more damage than Str 10 fighters? Here's quote from the post where you first introduced your examples (the paragraph starting with the "lesson to be learned" from the examples) : I take it you've changed your mind? Since you make no attempt to refute my posted proofs, or even acknowledge them, I'll assume that you now agree that: a) Wielding two Small greataxes is a bad idea (like I said) and b) Attack bonuses are, as a rule, more valuable than equivalent damage bonuses (like I said). Good. Glad to have that settled. In return I'll "agree" that (like I said) orcs make good fighters. I am trying to understand how you think. When you posted examples in the post where you loudly disagreed with my explanation for why wielding two Small greataxes was a bad idea, you [I]intended[/I] to show that Str 14 orcs can deal more damage than Str 10 humans. Even with a sub-optimal choice of weapons and fighting style. Is that accurate? :confused: Where is all this "human" talk coming from? Your "orc build" is inferior to an "orc build" with a two-handed greataxe wielder and an "orc build" with a two-weapon handaxe wielder. That's not my idea of "quite optimal", which is what I made clear in my very first reply to you. [/QUOTE]

Verification