Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6295019" data-attributes="member: 42582">The claim was made that it is inherent to D&D that the way you make non-casters comparable in effectiveness to casters is by caster-ising them. I disputed the claim with reference to both B/X and 4e. That is not asserting anything about the superiority of 4e to PF. It is contesting a claim about what is inherent to D&D, by reference to my own experience with well-known versions of D&D.Tequila Sunrise is correct about my point. I also agree with EnglishLanguage - the fighter and ranger in my 4e game sometimes do magic, because both are also clerics who can use clerical abilities; but when fighting with hammer, axe or bow they are not using magical abilities. Nor when scaling a cliff or surviving a 200' drop.I don't particularly care about the mechanical structure. In the Marvel Heroic RP game, both The Punisher and Doctor Strange have the same mechanical structure as PCs, but only one is a magician. The other is a really tough (and sometimes lucky) soldier. If I want to play a magician, I play Dr Strange. If I want to play a soldier, I play the Punisher. The different experience isn't about build or resolution mechanics - its about story elements and the shared fiction created by way of playing the game.I think the answer is - rather hard. For instance, you would have to deal with item creation feats; the fact that the default rules link treasure to defeating and looting enemies; the fact that some of these things produce overtly magical effects like fireballs and cones of cold; the fact that some of these things are useable only if you are of a certain class or have a certain sort of training (UMD); etc.It's not a negligible difference between PF and 4e that the latter is designed to permit the use of items, inherent bonuses, and/or boons, in whatever mix the participants prefer, without having to deal with the sorts of issues that would arise in 3E/PF.I agree that in 4e there is no fundamental mechanical distinction between caster and non-caster. (Although there are still mechanical distinctions, such as access to damage types, to effect types like teleportation and charm, and other sorts of mechanical differences in power suites that correspond to the fictional differences between (say) Aragorn and Gandalf.)It doesn't follow that it is nonsensical to think about the divide. It remains - or can remain - a significant story matter whether someone is a magician or not. Being a magician is an important part of Gandalf or Dr Strange's story. Being a soldier is an important part of The Punisher or Aragorn's story.The initial claim to which I replied was that it is inherent to D&D that the only way to power up a non-caster to put them on a par with a caster is to turn them into a (partial, pretend, or unqualified) caster. I don't think this is true. It's not true in B/X (which does maintain a strong mechanical contrast between casters and non-casters). Nor is it true in 4e (which doesn't maintain such a strong contrast). In both cases, non-casters can be powered up by becoming better at their non-magical abilities (eg more hit points, better attacks and saves, etc).What is pertinent to me is whether or not the game mandates, as a story element, that all powerful beings are (partial, pretend or unqualified) casters. This is not true for D&D in general, even if it is true of PF.I don't have a problem I'm trying to fix. I have played very little 3E and no PF, and don't see any more of either in my gaming future. If its true that, in PF, the only way for non-casters to compete with casters is to become casters, then that is all the more the case. I'm personally not that interested in a fantasy game with such a narrow fictional scope.My point was simply that this is not a general or inherent feature of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification