Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6295844" data-attributes="member: 17106">It isn't. There's obviously a long and odious line of posts that follow this topic, but the gist of it was this:It starts off with some statements about how wizards are amazing essentially because they can use scrolls to always have a perfect spell for the situation. Beyond this being a ludicrous exaggeration, I pointed out that a rogue could also use those same scrolls just fine if such a situation did arise (also true in 2e IIRC), so there really wasn't much of a difference between the classes in terms of this &quot;trump card&quot; potential.The response was something along the lines that this didn't count because the rogue was &quot;playing wizard&quot;, followed by some tangent about how by comparison a 4e rogue is perfect without any hint of magic whatsoever.All of these posts on the definition of magic essentially boil down to debunking that argument. Whether the flavor text of 4e counts martial powers as magic or not is debatable, but also irrelevant. The point is that looking from a PF (or other D&amp;D-based) perspective, they would be. They are used in such a way and produce outcomes that would be considered as such. The comparison above is just wrong, and really an irrelevant tangent regardless.What it actually leads to is the simple conclusion that if all the rules are correctly understood and enforced (including the good ol' rogue/thief ability to use magic items, as well as all these other tangents about how charm works and other spells) the game plays very differently than if they aren't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6295844, member: 17106"] It isn't. There's obviously a long and odious line of posts that follow this topic, but the gist of it was this: It starts off with some statements about how wizards are amazing essentially because they can use scrolls to always have a perfect spell for the situation. Beyond this being a ludicrous exaggeration, I pointed out that a rogue could also use those same scrolls just fine if such a situation did arise (also true in 2e IIRC), so there really wasn't much of a difference between the classes in terms of this "trump card" potential. The response was something along the lines that this didn't count because the rogue was "playing wizard", followed by some tangent about how by comparison a 4e rogue is perfect without any hint of magic whatsoever. All of these posts on the definition of magic essentially boil down to debunking that argument. Whether the flavor text of 4e counts martial powers as magic or not is debatable, but also irrelevant. The point is that looking from a PF (or other D&D-based) perspective, they would be. They are used in such a way and produce outcomes that would be considered as such. The comparison above is just wrong, and really an irrelevant tangent regardless. What it actually leads to is the simple conclusion that if all the rules are correctly understood and enforced (including the good ol' rogue/thief ability to use magic items, as well as all these other tangents about how charm works and other spells) the game plays very differently than if they aren't. [/QUOTE]

Verification