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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6264208" data-attributes="member: 18">Can you explain why this is difficult for you to understand? Honest question, because to me I can't see that bit. I can only see how it's mechanically boring.I mean, presumably you can understand this situation:1) Spells which do half-damage when saved against or when they miss (in 4E, a spell "missing" is the same exact thing as someone saving against it in another edition). This isn't just AE spells, either - lots of spells in various editions of D&D do half-damage even if you "save", even if they were something you could, realistically, have dodged all of.So why is the following situation hard for you to process:2) An ability which isn't a spell, but might well still be "magic", which does half-damage on a save/miss.I could understand not understand or disliking all three - say, you never liked that Fireball, other spells, and dragon breath weapons and so on were save-for-half in 1E and 2E, and didn't like it that this continued in 3E and 4E. That's where I'm at, by and large (understand-but-dislike, in my case). I think zero-damage-on-miss is more interesting in all cases. What I can't understand is why someone is fine with Fireball, breath weapons, some other physical effects and the like being save-for-half (which is precisely and exactly the same thing as half-on-miss), but not understand or like other, similar effects doing half-on-save/miss. That's confusing to me.I kind of wonder if a lot of it isn't veiled "Fighters can't have nice things", but when we're talking 4E, we're talking an awful lot of magic-users operating this way too.</blockquote>

Verification