Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3752380" data-attributes="member: 1003">Maybe I'm missing something, but why do people keep referring to Lanchester's Square Law when describing Brute combat in D&amp;D?&nbsp; Wasn't his point that ancient warfare (swords and formations) was linear, while only modern artillery made combat non-linear?Wouldn't that mean that Brute monsters and Artillery monsters (two &quot;roles&quot; that Mearls has described as being used in the 4e MM) would have to have different rates of advancement for different qualities? This is perhaps the driving reason for breaking up the MM into roles in the first place.&nbsp; Mearls has explicitly stated there will be a &quot;brute&quot; advancement and a &quot;artillery&quot; advancement (among other roles), and I expect those rates will be informed by this thinking.Further, certain classes (Fighters and Paladins, namely) would obey the Linear law while Wizards and Sorcerers (and possibly ranges Strikers, such as the Ranger) would have their level advancement influenced by the Square law.&nbsp; Leaders, OTOH, probably answer to a strange mix of the two, since they fight in a Linear manner but produce non-linear effects that depend on the number of allies they can provide bonuses to.&nbsp; Put another way, we have to ask: how far does a PC group's aggregate (k) resulting from a Leader's presence scale with party size?Further, Lanchester would have pointed out that surface area is different from number of combatants.&nbsp; 9 wizards, no two of whom are within 15' of each other, may be far more Survivable than 9 wizards squeezed into a 15'x15' room, depending on whether their enemy uses precision weapons (Finger of Death) or area weapons (DB Fireball).Lastly, I'm surprised I haven't see more discussion on how the limitations of using a single 20-sided die effects outcome resolution.&nbsp; I can barely follow the algebra, so probability theory is right beyond me, but it seems to me that the lack of granularity of outcomes and the lack of any kind of probability curve have a huge impact on D&amp;D's ability to scale with level.&nbsp; The game would probably handle some things a lot better with a &quot;25d4&quot; game engine, even if it was unplayable in other (obvious) respects.&nbsp; This is one advantage that WoW will always have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3752380, member: 1003"] Maybe I'm missing something, but why do people keep referring to Lanchester's Square Law when describing Brute combat in D&D? Wasn't his point that ancient warfare (swords and formations) was linear, while only modern artillery made combat non-linear? Wouldn't that mean that Brute monsters and Artillery monsters (two "roles" that Mearls has described as being used in the 4e MM) would have to have different rates of advancement for different qualities? This is perhaps the driving reason for breaking up the MM into roles in the first place. Mearls has explicitly stated there will be a "brute" advancement and a "artillery" advancement (among other roles), and I expect those rates will be informed by this thinking. Further, certain classes (Fighters and Paladins, namely) would obey the Linear law while Wizards and Sorcerers (and possibly ranges Strikers, such as the Ranger) would have their level advancement influenced by the Square law. Leaders, OTOH, probably answer to a strange mix of the two, since they fight in a Linear manner but produce non-linear effects that depend on the number of allies they can provide bonuses to. Put another way, we have to ask: how far does a PC group's aggregate (k) resulting from a Leader's presence scale with party size? Further, Lanchester would have pointed out that surface area is different from number of combatants. 9 wizards, no two of whom are within 15' of each other, may be far more Survivable than 9 wizards squeezed into a 15'x15' room, depending on whether their enemy uses precision weapons ([I]Finger of Death[/I]) or area weapons ([I]DB Fireball[/I]). Lastly, I'm surprised I haven't see more discussion on how the limitations of using a single 20-sided die effects outcome resolution. I can barely follow the algebra, so probability theory is right beyond me, but it seems to me that the lack of granularity of outcomes and the lack of any kind of probability curve have a huge impact on D&D's ability to scale with level. The game would probably handle some things a lot better with a "25d4" game engine, even if it was unplayable in other (obvious) respects. This is one advantage that WoW will always have. [/QUOTE]

Verification