The fact that your reply seems to indicate that you don't understand exactly what I'm trying to communicate could be due to a couple factors, including:
QFT
You're claiming that making a run-of-the-mill saving throw against poison can be likened to "russian roulette with three bullets" and "rocks fall, you die." Sit back and think about that.
How did a saving throw against poison go to being "insta-kill" exactly? Because the OP never says it's a save-or-die scenario. For that matter, it strikes me as disingenuous to say that disallowing a PC to negate having a make a save at all because they're retroactively claiming immunity via narrative fiat makes someone an adversarial DM.
Because as @Reynard explained, the result of failing that save is instant death.
Is @Reynard the author of the original post, which set the terms of the original scenario under discussion? No? Then that's not relevant here.
I'm now very clear on what's confusing you. You've wrongfully let someone else redefine the scenario in a way that's not in accordance with the larger discussion.
@Reynard explained this a while back. Everyone but you seemed to take this on board.
You've repeatedly suggested it's totally cool and fine to force a PC to have like a 50% chance of instant death, just because you're unable to accept the concept that the clothing note is made in good faith.
My impression was that @iserith agreed with it, and he certainly disagrees with you lol.
No, you have the "larger discussion" reversed.
And yet you can't even seem to quote the post where they did.
My impression is that it's not part of the original discussion, and was never edited into the original post.
And yet you still can't seem to quote where that was proposed, or explain how it somehow magically became part of the discussion that everyone else is participating in.
