Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 6297916" data-attributes="member: 40398">QFT! After playing 4e, I can't be bothered with rounds/day, or even hours/day.Maybe as a PF fix, divide rounds/day of whatever by 5 (round up); the result is the number of encounters/day that the ability can be used. As in 4e, 'encounter' = 5 minutes.I'd love to, but I don't even know what folks around here are debating anymore. I remember it began with something like &quot;I'd like PF be like B/X and 4e, in that muggles don't have to play pretend casters to be competent/effective/fun/awesome,&quot; and somehow that turned into a semantic argument over synonyms for 'magical' and 4e.Which completely misses the point, IMO. Call exploits 'martial magic,' 'extraordinary abilities,' or whatever sounds nice -- the important bit is that fighters and rogues are competent/effective/fun/awesome just by doing fighter and rogue stuff. They don't have to take UMD or buy caster toys to have nice things; because they already have nice things.I also find it amusing that even if we were able to somehow 'prove' that 4e fighters and rogues are wizards in disguise, the B/X point still stands -- that muggles can be competent/effective/fun/awesome without imitating casters. Well, presumably the point stands; I've never played B/X, so I can only assume by the general silence on the issue that the original claim is in fact true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tequila Sunrise, post: 6297916, member: 40398"] QFT! After playing 4e, I can't be bothered with rounds/day, or even hours/day. Maybe as a PF fix, divide rounds/day of whatever by 5 (round up); the result is the number of encounters/day that the ability can be used. As in 4e, 'encounter' = 5 minutes. I'd love to, but I don't even know what folks around here are debating anymore. I remember it began with something like "I'd like PF be like B/X and 4e, in that muggles don't have to play pretend casters to be competent/effective/fun/awesome," and somehow that turned into a semantic argument over synonyms for 'magical' and 4e. Which completely misses the point, IMO. Call exploits 'martial magic,' 'extraordinary abilities,' or whatever sounds nice -- the important bit is that fighters and rogues are competent/effective/fun/awesome [I]just by doing fighter and rogue stuff[/I]. They don't have to take UMD or buy caster toys to have nice things; because they already have nice things. I also find it amusing that even if we were able to somehow 'prove' that 4e fighters and rogues are wizards in disguise, the B/X point still stands -- that muggles can be competent/effective/fun/awesome without imitating casters. Well, presumably the point stands; I've never played B/X, so I can only assume by the general silence on the issue that the original claim is in fact true. [/QUOTE]

Verification