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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fnwc" data-source="post: 4096672" data-attributes="member: 48368">Much of the basic mechanics of the old saving throws are transferred to the new FORT,REF,WIL defenses. They behave similarly: a high CON will make it more difficult for a power to hit your FORT defense in 4E -- the same way a high CON will make it easier to make the FORT save in 3E. The difference is that in 3E you had some somewhat arbitrary assigning of DCs in some monster descriptions for things like monster poison, for example. I think the 4E way is better as the roll is transferred to the attacker, which scales with the attacker's level, not to mention being more consistent with the rest of the system.Between both systems, once the attacker hits (4E) or the target fails his save (3E) they suffer the consequences equally. In 3E, if a cleric with a high Wisdom fails his WILL save vs hold person, he is held for some X duration (the same as a fighter with a low Wisdom that fails his save). Similarly, the same cleric and fighter in 4E is held until they roll a 10+ 'save'. Some ill effects in 3E spells are tied to some kind of arbitrary scale such as HP (Power Word: Kill) or HD (Cloudkill) -- but I'm not a big fan of these, as they tend to make these spells quite useless later on in the campaign.Although I have yet to playtest 4E, I think I prefer the 4E mechanic, as it is more forgiving once the effect hits. One thing I hate about 3E is that some spells are not necessarily 'save or die', but they are definitely 'save or stop playing for 30 minutes'.</blockquote>

Verification