Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7284457" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Because all of those spells you keep trying to list have simple explanations about why they say those things.&nbsp; There's no 5e conspiracy where some spells end when the target fails a save and others do not.&nbsp; All spells end on a failed save unless they have some other ongoing continuing effect.&nbsp; Some spells that target additional creatures had tospecifically spell out what happens when one of those multiple creatures fail a save (the spell ends on that creature).&nbsp; Some spells that allow recurring saves have to detail that the effect they initially caused ended (they do this by saying the spell ends when the target makes it save against the recurring save).&nbsp; For basically every other spell it would be wasted words.&nbsp; If the spell caused no effects because the creature passed it's initial save why waste the space on every spell saying it ends then.&nbsp; In fact this is the first discussion that anyone even attempted to make the argument that a spell doesn't ended when the target/targets all save against it.&nbsp; It was all done in an attempt to rules lawyer 5e so that casters wouldn't know when a few specific spells affected a creature.&nbsp; Now I agree that's a fine way to play.&nbsp; It could be interesting especially in the right kind of campaign, but the amount of twisting and ignoring the simpliest explanations for how 5e handles concentration is mind boggling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7284457, member: 6795602"] Because all of those spells you keep trying to list have simple explanations about why they say those things. There's no 5e conspiracy where some spells end when the target fails a save and others do not. All spells end on a failed save unless they have some other ongoing continuing effect. Some spells that target additional creatures had tospecifically spell out what happens when one of those multiple creatures fail a save (the spell ends on that creature). Some spells that allow recurring saves have to detail that the effect they initially caused ended (they do this by saying the spell ends when the target makes it save against the recurring save). For basically every other spell it would be wasted words. If the spell caused no effects because the creature passed it's initial save why waste the space on every spell saying it ends then. In fact this is the first discussion that anyone even attempted to make the argument that a spell doesn't ended when the target/targets all save against it. It was all done in an attempt to rules lawyer 5e so that casters wouldn't know when a few specific spells affected a creature. Now I agree that's a fine way to play. It could be interesting especially in the right kind of campaign, but the amount of twisting and ignoring the simpliest explanations for how 5e handles concentration is mind boggling. [/QUOTE]

Verification