Search results

Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction? Because if you are, um.... Wow. Don't even know where to start with that.

So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die. I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and...

Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the...

But that's not what would have happened. If the Harry Potter series had included D&D style save-or-die, what would have happened is that Harry would have encountered a random Death Eater, it would have pointed at him, and he would have dropped dead right there. It would have been a crappy ending...

I believe that Rich's work falls under the safe umbrella of parody.

They always get used right away in my games. It doesn't make sense to wait. What's the point of casting Finger of Death on a target with only 10 hit points remaining? A Magic Missile will work just as well at that point.

I'm hoping it's someone we haven't yet seen, and he'll be played by Enrico Colantoni.

"Let's earn some XP" was the best laugh-out-loud line of the strip in a long time now, IMO.

It refers to the series of games. Curse of the Azure Bonds was one of them.

Magic Missile never missed for me in any of the Gold Box games. Are you sure you didn't have a glitched copy or something?

Making a save against a save-or-die doesn't net the character anything but the right to continue adventuring. And as for the frequency, change it to twenty, or whatever you like. It's still not how craps (or any gambling game that I'm aware of) is played. No, they don't. The players don't...

Yes it is. That's the whole point of save-or-die. You save, or you die. One roll.

Sorry, your analogy is flawed. The gambler in your example has the choice to never sit down at the craps table, just as D&D players have the choice to never sit down at the D&D table. The difference is, once they've started playing, the gambler has the choice as to whether or not to bet...

Well, if you understand the fundamental difference here, then why on earth did you post this: in response to me asking this: when it is clear from the context of the discussion that I am, indeed, talking about the saving throw against the save-or-die attack being the only roll that matters? Do...

Are you going to start arguing semantics now?

One move in chess is meaningless when divorced from the context of the moves that came before it (except for the opening move, but it's impossible to win the game on the opening move). If all that matters in chess is one move, as you claim, then answer me this: Bxe5 Is that a good move, or...

That's a specious argument if I've ever heard one. This conversation is about save-or-die, not about playing D&D in general. But it does not (necessarily) mean that you bet the life of your character on one single roll of the die. Actually, that's not true. The chance of randomly meeting an...

But according to you, it hasn't. According to you, the game is only decided on the final move which establishes checkmate. So I ask again - are all the chess masters who concede when they see checkmate coming several moves away simply ignorant of how the game really works?

So all those chess masters who see checkmate coming five or six or seven moves away and concede - they just don't know anything about the game? Is that it?

So, I take it that you also believe that victory or defeat in chess comes down to a single move?