Community

thaX wrote:

But the granade still goes off, bearing that it doesn't have any defects of manufacture. Fireball should not go "fssst. poof." Just because it is summoned instead of bought.

From most of the things that I have seen and read, a 'miss' is the same as a failed save in 3e and earlier editions.

You take half damage on a 'miss' with a fireball instead of the full damage in the 4e mechanics. All the 'miss' or 'hit' determines is whether you eat half or full damage (though there will likely be talent trees that allow a 'miss' to be no damage making the same effect for rogues, monks, and rangers in 3e).

This was stated clearly in the Core Mechanics article. Your fireball is no better or worse then before except that a high level mage facing a low level person is more likely going to have them eat the full damage and a lower level mage verses a high level opponent is more likely going to have them eat half the damage.

To me, this makes the same sense as a low level fighter verses a high level fighter. The low level fighter can still hurt the high level figher but just not as often or likely for the same amount of damage.

triqui wrote:

In that article, if the dragon rolls 1 completelly fails, if he rolls 20 does double damage

This is an extension of the concept that a 20 is always a pass on a save and a 1 is always a failure.

Personally, the fact that a mage in the middle of a combat rushes to cast a spell and goofs the magical castin is not a bad concept. It is also not entirely new as mages could fail previously if they were hit in combat (3e turned this into Concentration checks from previous Saving Throws needed in earlier editions).

I have known many other games where a roll of a 1 or similar system (I can think of the triple 1 roll of In Nomine) has hightened during the game story when the odds were seemingly hopeless.

If a fighter can fumble an attack with a sword then why can not a mage fumble the cast of a spell? Certainly, even with practice, the complexity of getting every hand and body movement properly timed with words and usage of a foci must be extionally tough at the best of times without your friends screaming that they are getting mulled to death.

The_Jester wrote:

Just have to chime in...



But it isn't.
Instead of a life-or-death saving throw that YOU get to make (roll a reflex save against the breath weapon) it's now a roll the DM makes. So the "[h]ours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll." A roll that you sit helplessly and WATCH while all control you have is gone.

and once again... 3.0 mindset. You are supposing that EVERY spell in 3.0 is going to be in 4. Slay living and finger of death might be out of the game, or be re-worded to look like Desintegrate does in 3.5 compared to 3.0...

PS: if you roll the dice, the control you have is zero anyways. It is RANDOM, no matter how much you "feel" or "think" your "luck" is involved.

Vorvadoss wrote:

which just leads us to believe that they're going to go with the "Never Die" mentality of Saga Edition.

and that concept is full of failure due to the inherent lack of risk.

Are you telling me that you havent feel your character in risk against a monster that do not have die or suck abilities?