Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5680728" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Look around? That's essentially arguing a point based on anecdotal evidence. You brought up Michael Jordon. Guess what? MJ wanted to be a baseball player. He didn't start playing basketball until highschool. After MJ retired from basketball, he went to the minor leagues and tried to resurect his baseball dreams....and failed. The arguably greatest basketball player in history can't even make a major league team in baseball. So if we "look around" Jordan, despite all desire to the contrary, ended up playing basketball. You said this: I think the basis of our disagreement stems from my interpreting qualified in a much more narrow range of being truly gifted as opposed to being merely competent at something. I mean you're "qualified" to be a waiter, a postal carrier, and a office temp. But I don't think you're arguing that type of qualification.   I don't know why you bring this up.  Again, I fail to see the relevance of this assertion. Now we're quite far afield. There's a lot that goes into what it takes to get an entertainment contract and talent is only part of it. Just ask Mili Vanili. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you're deserving of a contract or you should be on the radio. Success in entertainment isn't stricly based on merit or probably even predominantly based on talent.   So it's not based on any statistcal research? Just a guess based on other info.  This is the part of your educated guess that gives me the most trouble. Height is only loosely correlated to basketball prowess. So you're using a stat that says really very little about one's ability to play basketball at the profesional level and that extrapolating that to how many people who were at Jordan's level?  I think you compound the problem by bringing in reflexes, something we have no statistical data on at a population level. Which is how much exactly?   In 1e, you pretty much took all your levels in the same class. So your earlier statement: "Only a few of those will have the drive to master it."  Dosen't seem so applicable to D&D. D&D doesn't really require any "drive" to succeed. I think it's pretty much assumed to exist as a result of someone willing to crawl in to a dungeon and fight monsters. And what's really silly is that you can technically level to the highest levels by backstabbing level appropriate humanoids. So the game doesn't even specifically require that you even cast a single spell to gain 9th level spells (but your DM might).</blockquote>

Verification