Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5783690" data-attributes="member: 42582">But there are all sorts of ways to model this other than just making the numbers bigger. Examples include the AD&D rule about fighters' multiple attacks vs less-than-1HD foes, or 4e style close bursts, or giving fighters access to tricky manoeuvres. As long as you don't allow multiple attacks to stack on a given foe, these sorts of things can reflect a fighter's competence without increasing raw output in a way that renders the wizard irrelevant.To some extent, I also think concessions to the game need to be made.I'm confident in saying, for example, that no amateur philosopher could find objections to the reasoning in my best published work (they might reject the premises, but that's a different matter). But I'm sure that Frank Jackson or Jeff McMahan or some other serious philosopher could - not knockdown ones, necessarily, but ones that I would have to take seriously if I were to try and rebut them.But to make the game work, I think we have to admit the conceit that is common in fiction, that even little-trained amateurs are occasionally capable of great insight or worthwhile contribution (like Sam(?) with the frying pan in the LotR movie). And if this is going to happen at all, then the numbers are going to have to be better than (for example) 1 in 100 or even 1 in 20, or else we'll almost certainly never see it come up in play.</blockquote>