Community

Mar 8, 2012 -- 4:57AM, jelkimantis wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 7:05PM, OgreBattle wrote:

your high CON does resist it, you make endurance checks to get rid of the condition

"Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
7 or lower: The stage of the disease increases by one."

...but it could have just been an endurance check to begin with.

Right, my point was the initial save. I am fully aware of the recovery rolls being endurance (con) related... And having an unmodified d20 roll where 10 or higher wins is like using percentile dice - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And you're right, multi-classing needs to make a little more sense than it did in 3e... 

wel the initial save has been replaced with the fortitude defence that is con based.
being hit with a atack verses fort defence is the same as failing a con based saving trow in 3.X

after being efected in 3.X you are afected for a set duration.
in 4th your affected for a random duration dependent on saves.
 

1e (Based on reports): full of technical bugs.  Complexity existed where you didn't need it and didn't exist where a modern gamer would want it (say, in character design)

2e (Minor experience): Has a lot of seriously arcane mechanics, especially arbitrary limiters on character advancement/creation, that ought to be hammered out of the system.

3.0 (Played the hell out of this): some seriously broken choices plague the game.  Runs fine, maybe the best I've experienced, but ONLY under a gentelmen's agreement to avoid CoDzilla and other such cheese (IE, fighters are allowed or required to optimize, wizards are expected not to).

3.5 (Played the hell out of this): Corrected many of 3e's specific problems (bag of rats, for instance) while introducing unforseen annoyances of its own (the fighter's golf bag).  Overall, it didn't really solve the Imbalance problem, though the class bloat after Complete X provided enough classes to play within a balanced range, unlike 3.0.  As such, it still needs a vigilant and knowledgable DM or a standing gentelmen's agreement to run well.

3.5 (by tests) and 4e (by reports): OPTION BLOAT!  Dear god, the option bloat....

4e (Tested this, decided it wasn't for me): HP bloat was a serious problem whenever I tried to play this.  A big problem for me was also class homogenization.  3.x was grid reliant compared to the TSR editions, but 4e's reliance on the grid makes 3rd look like freeform.  Ouch! (A lot of people complain about "low threat" in 4e, but I never will... my first experience with the system ended in a TPK because the party was paranoid)

4e (Basic information): 5 alignments that equate order with goodness and chaos with evil.  30 levels.

4e (Later discussions; didn't come up in release info or my personal experience): Monsters and PCs don't live in the same rules-universe, nor can they (so far no one has "debunked" there being no acceptable rules to balance an NPC enemy built as a PC).

Essentials (Played around with the Red Box, again...): homogenization is patched to some degree, other 4e problems persist



Hope for next: 2e's charm/feel, 3e's variety, 4e's balance.

Level-by-level multiclassing in 3.X was a big mistake.  On the surface it seemed sensible, but in order for it to work every level of every class has to be of equal value at all times.  Obviously that never happened, and probably was never possible to begin with.

     Rarity system.  It works well enough in Magic [at least from WOTC's view] since the players are encouraged to go buy more stuff.  But we don't buy anything physical in D&D when our PC gets a magic item and so all it does is complicate the magic selection process.

    Alignment system.  Now I like the 3e system, but 4e is worthless.  Better to just domp it if they are not willing to make the effort to make a proper system.