Something that's been on my mind, and which relates a little to a different topic elsewhere is the question of a class that doesn't use magic to accomplish something vs one that does.
Of course, one could argue that Alchemists aren't spell-casters per se even though they have a spell list for things they can do with their chemicals, and thus an Artificer or Tinker would also be able to draw upon a spell list for abilities to imbue items with.
The problem I see comes later when you get into other fields like baking or art. After all, there's no good reason that a baker couldn't have magical ingredients nor that an artist couldn't have magical paints. The Wandering Artist, in fact, covers it.
This, of course, could apply to anything similar like a Fighter vs a Magus. I'm just curious how folks here deal with the mundane vs the magical when it comes to various classes and where the important difference lies. In some places (like Fighter vs Magus) the distinction is clear, but in others (like Tinker vs Artificer), it seems a bit more like fluff or flavoring.
The tinkerer is a pet class while the artificer uses personal power, there's your distinction
Do you want to fave a not so fleshy flesh wall, or do you want to be a mad scientist with a helicopter backpack and a death ray.
Well, I'm not sure who wouldn't want the latter, I'm just curious as to why someone might choose the former or, indeed, why there are non-magic classes at all.