My feeling is that is probably a mistake for a certain sort of play - and, perhaps, for any player - to build a PC who has those two powers, which functionally differ only in their DPR output across a range of ACs. It becomes like the "Power Attack" spreadsheet in 3E.
Indeed. One of the failings of 4e is that it never actually mentions that you probably shouldn't do this.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's because almost every description of casting magic in the majority of fiction is nothing like shooting an arrow or swinging a sword... and that's where most peoples expectations are going to come from. They expect a different mechanic because, IMO, for most people it is the mechanics that impart a particular "feel" regardless of what form of fiction they try and lather across it. Again, IMO... it creates dissonance for many when the mechanics are the same or very similar between magic and mundane because this is not how most fiction (which are their reference points) describes them.
EDIT: I mean the answer really is "because (most) people expect them to be different."
EDIT 2: Even in games such as Exalted and Earthdawn, where arguably even the fighters and rogues are using magic, the designers recognize this expectation most people have and implement seperate mechanics for the casting of actual spells.
I disagree emphatically that most people expect it to be different. In
most games I can think of off the top of my head, it's only different where the outcomes are different.
GURPS? It's all skill rolls. Everything's skill rolls.
Spirit of the Century? Everything's the same type of roll.
WFRP 3e? Everything's the same type of roll.
WFRP 2e? Different rolls because there's a serious possibility of magical blowback at the same time as the spell working. Which doesn't happen on a pass/fail system. Different because the outcomes are different.
Call of Cthulu? Non-magical checks don't normally make you go insane. IIRC Different because the outcomes are different.
Wushu? Yeaaaahhhh.
Feng Shui? Nope. And this in a system where kung fu is different from gunplay.
World of Darkness? I don't recall the mechanics for casting being distinct. Roll that dice pool.
4e? Combat spells are the same. Rituals are different because they do different things.
From the games on my shelves either magic is different because magic is costly and dangerous to the caster or things are different because that's what the game's about. Is D&D really about wizards and casters and their second class cousins? I can make a good argument that it is given the proportion of the PHB spells take up.
This is really the crux of the matter. People keep claiming how "easy" 4e is to get into but compared to what? OD&D? Moldvay/Cook? BECMI? I don't think it is.
Compared to AD&D or 3.X I believe it is. Compared to oD&D, oD&D has the advantage of being a rules-light system that's little deeper than a tabletop wargame but you only get very few pawns, and the Red Box was explicitely written for beginners.
I'd even say 4e offloads more necessary upfront rules knowledge and memorization (that is specific to their characters and only their characters due to it's exception based design) on players in order for them to run their characters properly than either AD&D or 3.x. YMMV, of course.
Mine does. Massively. Compared to AD&D I don't have any lookup tables or need to wrestle with anything like THAC0 or a frankly weird saving throw system. Roll a d20 and get as high as possible. And don't get me started on NWPs. Compared to 3.X, even at low level the skill system is a joy. The stunting rules work so you can offload that to the DM. And things that feel as if they should work do work.
Of course I'm talking about 4e (2012) not 4e (2008). 4e (2008) lacked a simple class (the ranger was as close as you had). And this was a vast oversight.
don't think many of the gamers here can conceive that for some/many that the current investment to play a game of make believe fantasy is to high.
I can. One of the reasons I praise Essentials is that it brought PCs where you could Just Hit Stuff in combat. And finally a caster where you can Just Blow Stuff Up. I'll match the Slayer and the Knight against the 3.X fighter or barbarian any day. Hell, I'll almost match them against the oD&D fighter even once you've taken the clunky rules out of OD&D. Of course this was two years later than it should have been and that was an oversight in the PHB. And even the eMartial classes are
I would also think that 4e's emphasis on tactical combat (both time-wise and as the primary focus of the encounters program) may be off-putting to gamers who aren't really interested or enjoy tactical combat in and of itself.
Agreed. But I'd say the same about D&D's rules - that they are combat-centric as befits a hacked tabletop wargame.
