Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grog" data-source="post: 3839441" data-attributes="member: 6183">Sorry, your analogy is flawed. The gambler in your example has the choice to never sit down at the craps table, just as D&amp;D players have the choice to never sit down at the D&amp;D table. The difference is, once they've started playing, the gambler has the choice as to whether or not to bet everything he has on a single roll of the dice. D&amp;D players do not have the choice as to whether or not to bet everything (i.e., their character's life) on a single roll of the d20. That is something that is forced upon them over the course of the game.The gambler in your example can choose exactly how much he risks every step of the way. D&amp;D players do not have that same choice. So your analogy fails. A proper analogy would be a gambler playing some kind of house-ruled craps game where every tenth bet (or whatever), he's required to make a roll, and if he succeeds, he gets nothing except the right to stay in the game, and if he fails, he loses all the money he has. That would be the equivalent of save-or-die in a craps game.And also, saying &quot;save-or-die is in the rules&quot; totally misses the point of this discussion. We aren't talking about what the rules are, we're talking about what the rules should be.Well, I think your numbers are off, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that the wizard is alone, but rather than argue about that, I'll just point out that even in your (very slanted) example, the stone giant only has a 4.75% chance of killing the wizard with one attack. Now compare that to the 35% (or more) chance he has to die from a save-or-die attack.Yes, when the party is 13th level, 13th level enemies are quite common.Unless you think a 13th level party should still be fighting 5th level wizards?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grog, post: 3839441, member: 6183"] 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 [i]choice[/i] as to whether or not to bet everything he has on a single roll of the dice. D&D players do not have the choice as to whether or not to bet everything (i.e., their character's life) on a single roll of the d20. That is something that is forced upon them over the course of the game. The gambler in your example can choose exactly how much he risks every step of the way. D&D players do not have that same choice. So your analogy fails. A proper analogy would be a gambler playing some kind of house-ruled craps game where every tenth bet (or whatever), he's required to make a roll, and if he succeeds, he gets nothing except the right to stay in the game, and if he fails, he loses all the money he has. That would be the equivalent of save-or-die in a craps game. And also, saying "save-or-die is in the rules" totally misses the point of this discussion. We aren't talking about what the rules [i]are[/i], we're talking about what the rules [i]should be.[/i] Well, I think your numbers are off, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that the wizard is alone, but rather than argue about that, I'll just point out that even in your (very slanted) example, the stone giant only has a 4.75% chance of killing the wizard with one attack. Now compare that to the 35% (or more) chance he has to die from a save-or-die attack. Yes, when the party is 13th level, 13th level enemies are quite common. Unless you think a 13th level party should still be fighting 5th level wizards? :confused: [/QUOTE]

Verification