4Edition. Do you like it?

[HuManBing]

I am a less advanced form of human, so I'm only used to operating in standard 3-D. Thus 4-E is spatially too confusing for me.

[Zettaijin]

I don't see what the hoopla is about 3E. It's a very poor opening move, quite frankly, and 4E easily trumps it.

[alhoon]

30% of FoS agrees with you that 4E is better than 3rd. 70% disagrees.

[HuManBing]

I don't see what the hoopla is about 3E. It's a very poor opening move, quite frankly, and 4E easily trumps it.

*tips hat*

Of course, if white opens with 3.5 E, now that's gonna confuse black no end!

[Mortavius]

Of course Alhoon, like someone else pointed out, the survey above has one answer that's completely "for" 4th edition, and 4 answers that are all against it to some degree (or at the very least MORE for 3E than 4E).

[brilliantlight]

There are two big problems with 4th edition

1) It is too inflexible for spellcasters. Fighters were beefed up which was needed but spell casters were completely nerfed. A 4th lvl Cleric gets a whopping 5 spells. In 3.5 he gets 12+ wis bonus.

2) It is nothing like the previous editions which makes all the books prior to 4th useless. I can easily convert even a 1st edition book to 3.5 easily but it is extremely difficult to change a 3.5 to a four and even then can't be done completely, One big example is Azalin, what kind of curse is unable to learn new spells in 4th edition? Who cares? There aren't many spells for him to use anyways.

[Pamela]

There are two big problems with 4th edition

1) It is too inflexible for spellcasters. Fighters were beefed up which was needed but spell casters were completely nerfed. A 4th lvl Cleric gets a whopping 5 spells. In 3.5 he gets 12+ wis bonus.

2) It is nothing like the previous editions which makes all the books prior to 4th useless. I can easily convert even a 1st edition book to 3.5 easily but it is extremely difficult to change a 3.5 to a four and even then can't be done completely, One big example is Azalin, what kind of curse is unable to learn new spells in 4th edition? Who cares? There aren't many spells for him to use anyways.

1) A 4th level cleric in 4e gets channel divinity (encounter), two at wills, two encounters, one daily and one utility (which depending on the choice, can be a daily or encounter). Only one (or perhaps two) is a daily; the rest can be used either as often as she wants or at least every encounter. The 3e cleric can only use those twelve spells once per day and that's it. That is indeed a whopping difference in my eyes.

2) I never particularly found 3e/3.5e that easy to use and consider that edition the hardest to translate. However, I recognise that is a matter of opinion. As for Azalin, 4e has the concept of being able to retrain for spells (always useful as new spells come out a la Divine or Arcane Power). Azalin's curse is that he is never able to retrain ie learn the new spells. Not that difficult if you're willing to give it a chance.

[Mortavius]

Since when have the Darklord curses been about game mechanics? I've never once found that to be the case. It was flavor for the DL in question. Azalin had paragraphs of spells in the previous editions, now he has less. The fact remains: he can't learn new ones. For Azalin as a character, this would be infuriating; knowing that there is new magic out there that he could learn or even create, but he cannot due to his curse.

It's like saying that Dominic d'Honaire's curse that the closer he gets to a woman the more repulsive she finds him doesn't work in 4E. Frankly, I find it rather ridiculous.

I will agree with you however, that in 4E, spellcasters get less spells than previous editions. To my mind, this is made up for by the fact that most of those spells they can use MUCH more often than previously. Part of the reason (I believe) that the spellcasters had so many spells removed was to make it easier for players. I can speak from experience that a new player to D&D playing a spellcaster was often overwhelmed by the number of spells they had to cast, and especially a Cleric, where you had access to the entire list. At least with a Wizard or Sorcerer you were confined to what you knew/had in your spellbook. But if you were playing a Cleric or Druid or some such, you basically had to familiarize yourself with every single spell of each level so that you could make the best decision on what to pray for.

[brilliantlight]

Since when have the Darklord curses been about game mechanics? I've never once found that to be the case. It was flavor for the DL in question. Azalin had paragraphs of spells in the previous editions, now he has less. The fact remains: he can't learn new ones. For Azalin as a character, this would be infuriating; knowing that there is new magic out there that he could learn or even create, but he cannot due to his curse.

It's like saying that Dominic d'Honaire's curse that the closer he gets to a woman the more repulsive she finds him doesn't work in 4E. Frankly, I find it rather ridiculous.

I will agree with you however, that in 4E, spellcasters get less spells than previous editions. To my mind, this is made up for by the fact that most of those spells they can use MUCH more often than previously. Part of the reason (I believe) that the spellcasters had so many spells removed was to make it easier for players. I can speak from experience that a new player to D&D playing a spellcaster was often overwhelmed by the number of spells they had to cast, and especially a Cleric, where you had access to the entire list. At least with a Wizard or Sorcerer you were confined to what you knew/had in your spellbook. But if you were playing a Cleric or Druid or some such, you basically had to familiarize yourself with every single spell of each level so that you could make the best decision on what to pray for.

What the Hell does Azalin have TO learn? There are VERY few spells out there! He loses what? Maybe 20-25 spells high level spells (Last three levels of whatever level you make him) TOTAL. This handful of spells is really going to bug him? I agree about flavor being more important than mechanics but it should have some impact.

[Isabella]

What the Hell does Azalin have TO learn?

Any and all rituals you say he didn't know, for one.

[brilliantlight]

There are two big problems with 4th edition

1) It is too inflexible for spellcasters. Fighters were beefed up which was needed but spell casters were completely nerfed. A 4th lvl Cleric gets a whopping 5 spells. In 3.5 he gets 12+ wis bonus.

2) It is nothing like the previous editions which makes all the books prior to 4th useless. I can easily convert even a 1st edition book to 3.5 easily but it is extremely difficult to change a 3.5 to a four and even then can't be done completely, One big example is Azalin, what kind of curse is unable to learn new spells in 4th edition? Who cares? There aren't many spells for him to use anyways.

1) A 4th level cleric in 4e gets channel divinity (encounter), two at wills, two encounters, one daily and one utility (which depending on the choice, can be a daily or encounter). Only one (or perhaps two) is a daily; the rest can be used either as often as she wants or at least every encounter. The 3e cleric can only use those twelve spells once per day and that's it. That is indeed a whopping difference in my eyes.

2) I never particularly found 3e/3.5e that easy to use and consider that edition the hardest to translate. However, I recognise that is a matter of opinion. As for Azalin, 4e has the concept of being able to retrain for spells (always useful as new spells come out a la Divine or Arcane Power). Azalin's curse is that he is never able to retrain ie learn the new spells. Not that difficult if you're willing to give it a chance.

Even a 4th lvl favored soult gets 13 spells and can use them 15 + cha times a day. Do many people use up 15 spell castings a day? I don't.

[HuManBing]

Okay, I'm no fan of 4E, but I do think the discussion's getting a little off track here. The example of Azalin's curse not holding up in 4E is a pretty wobbly argument, IMO, because even in 3E the books specifically say "By the way, DM, if you find a spell Azalin should have, give it to him."

The "curse" is purely for storytelling purposes, even back in 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed, so it's not a particularly compelling argument against 4th end.

I'm not offering this as a defense of 4E but a better example might be warranted. Azalin's curse has always been geared towards fluff rather than crunch.

[Mortavius]

As HumanBing said, this is a poor argument. The fact is, in 2E and 3E, Azalin had a full compliment of spells, and they were useful spells for him. He had Finger of Death; he even had Wish. So the fact that he couldn't learn new magic, and your comment of what was there for him to learn applies equally there. After all, in 2E & 3E, Wish can duplicate other spells, so as was pointed out to me many years ago, that effectively bypasses his curse right there if the DM allows it.

It would be different if Azalin didn't have a full compliment of spells, or if his spells were particularly bad choices. Then his curse would have a definate game impact. But in all the incarnations he has been presented, that has not been the case. His curse has ALWAYS been story-driven.

Just because there isn't the same amount of spells in 4E right now (and actually, if you use the optional suppliments and the Dragon magazine articles, there are a LOT of powers to choose from), doesn't mean that the curse doesn't impact Azalin. Firstly, the character of Azalin doesn't *know* that there are only this many books of spells to choose from. Secondly, Azalin is known to create his own magic. He did it in the past, and there's nothing to stop him from doing it in the future, except for...oh yeah. His curse.

And as another poster mentioned, I would apply his curse to Rituals as well. Which almost every book released in 4E so far has at least a few of.

You're correct on one key point though. His curse should have an impact. And it does. It's just not a *game mechanic* impact. It'a a story impact. It affects his character, his outlook, and his choices. Just because it doesn't have a + or - behind it doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact.

[Igor the Henchman]

Igor's Law: As an online Ravenloft discussion grows longer, the probability of demonstrative arguments involving Azalin Rex approaches 1.

I hereby call it argumentum ad Azalinum.

There, its copyrighted. From here on, you use Azalin to prove a point, you owe me money.

[Joël of the FoS]

Excellent !