Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5511217" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't know about how good the sweet spot is in PF, but the thing that it doesn't address at all is PLOT POWER. Casters in all pre-4e editions had enormous plot power. This can't be rectified by slowing down casting in combat as you've suggested earlier nor by the PF method of buffing up non-casters combat power and toning down meta-magic. In fact PF entirely missed the point, it wasn't combat power of caster classes which was the issue (though it is AN issue and may be less so in PF). The issue is the fundamental assumption that casting spells can accomplish virtually any arbitrary effect whereas if you don't cast spells you can have loads of ways to slice things with your steely knives, but you'll never ever leave mundane hotel. The casters get a toolbox that has a tool for every possible situation, the fighter gets a ginsu knife. No matter how sharp it is he's not pounding nails with it or screwing in screws etc.Basically the 4e devs had a few choices: 1) They could have nerfed magic down to the point where it was nothing but a combat tool on a par with a sword.2) They could have increased the abilities of mundane characters so that even at 1st level they were as fantastical as casters.3) They could have made the consequences of magic so harsh that while it was potent it was close to impossible to use.4) They could have invested all magic in items, eliminated restrictions on their use by class, and done away with combat/utility spell casting entirely.In fact 4e uses a bit of all these options. Magic is somewhat reduced in effectiveness and it is more focused on combat uses. Mundane characters do gain more capabilities which are more on par with spells. Really potent magic with lots of plot power is moved to rituals, difficult and expensive but also open to all classes. Items generally have no explicit restrictions on who can use them. Anyway, yeah, that is getting off the topic. It does help to illuminate the reasons for the differences in edition design. Notice that the improvement of non-magical capabilities is what seems to generally stick in some people's craws. I don't really think it has much to do with simulationism. Even the way healing works in 4e is really a boon to non-casters. Healing magic is no longer as central to the game, and at least the front line melee types get their hit points back at the start of the day. Creating a separate category of 'physical damage' would just send them back to school again.</blockquote>

Verification