Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5336423" data-attributes="member: 1210">To use the magic missile example, it appears, travels to the orc and effects the orc... just like it says in the power. No "Hit" line- no attack roll- means no hit (generally). You seem to think that "effect" and "hit" are the same or something, but if you look in the rules you will see quite clearly that they aren't.If a power targets an enemy, that has nothing to do with whether it hits or not. If a power targets an enemy and deals damage on a miss, it still hasn't hit. If it has an effect regardless of whether it hits or miss, that's not a hit either.If magic missile was supposed to be a hit, don't you think it would have been written that way?Now, you are continuing to argue both without evidence and against the evidence, which is fine- I seem to recall a rules quote just a bit upthread, including in the post of mine that you seem to have selectively read- but in general, if you're going to ignore the evidence and insist you have it right without any evidence of your own, there isn't much room for discussion, is there?One more thing I'll add:Not at all. 4e is explicitly not modeling an in-game fictional reality- I am quite sure that you can find a bunch of designer quotes about this too. The game rules are there to allow the pcs to be heroic.And as for absurd- seriously, dude, you're talking about a game where high-level pcs can fall 100' and dust themselves off. You're talking about a game where even the non-magical guys can do pretty magical stuff. About a game where you pretend to be an elf. To me, it's absurd that you would continue to argue insistently that you're right when the evidence is all against you and you have no evidence backing you up. And to try to shift the burden of proof to me is lazy debate. I'm not trying to prove your point for you and you aren't convincing anyone on your say-so. I've had several online arguments lately that devolved into "It's obvious, I don't need evidence!" Well, I don't care if it's obvious to you- I am not taking your word for it because you are flat-out, plain and simple, dead wrong.The position you seem to be taking is, "I don't care what the rules say, I KNOW THIS IS HOW IT IS!!1!!1" Is this how you argue rules disputes at the table too?</blockquote>

Verification