Is there any point in the other classes?

[Paganboy28]

Ok, having read lots of forum posts and so forth about the uberness of the caster classes in DnD 3.5, it does make me wonder if the other classes are more or less redundant.

If this is the case then why are they there? Why would anyone want to gimp themselves by playing something less than something more powerful?

Why isn't every DnD player rolling a caster and letting forth their uberness? Why are their parties with other classes in when caster can do more and better?


Does this concept then detract from the basic precepts of DnD (or what I thought) that in the dungeon-crawling the basic roles of the characters are:

tank, healer, damage dealer, and party face.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Because deriving your power from alcohol is sheer awesomeness.

[tahu88810]

RP, basically.
Also, because there are some cool concepts that aren't wizards. You can, potentially, get as powerful as a wizard. Wizards can be powerful, but still need to played intelligently to work. And at low levels, casters aren't all that great on their own.

[Morty]

Because a) Not everyone knows about the casters' advantages and b) Because they're powerful doesn't mean the other classes can't be played and c) Sometimes you want to play something that, well, isn't a caster.

[World Eater]

I'd much rather be punching things to death than using baby magic.

[Saph]

Same reason you don't make every character Pun-Pun. Going for maximum power in a fantasy role-playing game becomes self-defeating very quickly.

[Paganboy28]

Because a) Not everyone knows about the casters' advantages and b) Because they're powerful doesn't mean the other classes can't be played and c) Sometimes you want to play something that, well, isn't a caster.

How can people who play 3.5 not know about the caster advantages!? its moaned about, commented on, glorified and so forth on pretty much every DnD forum.

[KillianHawkeye]

Is this a serious post?? :smallannoyed:

Not everybody likes casters. Some people just honestly enjoy beating people with sticks and don't care or even know about what's "optimized." Not only that, but it takes a lot of knowledge and work to play a caster as an invincible god-killer and not everybody wants to put that much effort into it. Some people just wanna play and have fun, the simple way. And when your party cleric or wizard aren't teh ub3r, you actually do need a fighter or barbarian to take the hits for them.

Basically, the other classes aren't redundant unless you make them redundant, playing what you like isn't "gimping" yourself, and the internet isn't equivalent with most people's games.

EDIT: Super-ninja'd!

Also

How can people who play 3.5 not know about the caster advantages!? its moaned about, commented on, glorified and so forth on pretty much every DnD forum.

Not everybody wastes all their time reading about D&D on the internet.

[Crow]

Most of the optimization-fu and RAWtardedness you see on forums is miles away from how most real-world games play out.

[Morty]

How can people who play 3.5 not know about the caster advantages!? its moaned about, commented on, glorified and so forth on pretty much every DnD forum.

Because not everyone reads message boards.

[Magnor Criol]

I think if you're deciding not to play a class in a fantasy RPG tabletop game simply because it's not as uber as you can be, you're missing the point of the whole thing.

YMMV.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

This thread is going to devolve very quickly.

[Temotei]

Because casters aren't always fun. You may just get killed in the first level of life. You probably will more often than your party fighter or barbarian.

Another thing: Tome of Battle. It's like making melee casters, but with maneuvers replacing the spells. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, and factotum. Factotum wins at everything. Honestly. :smallsmile:

[Mushroom Ninja]

Why isn't every DnD player rolling a caster and letting forth their uberness?


Because playing on hard mode is fun. :smallcool:

[Paganboy28]

But at it's core DnD is a dungeon-bashing, monster-smashing game is it not?

When it comes down to it, regardless of what the social aspects are, its a case of destroying/overcoming one mob as quickly and efficiently as possible then moving on to the next, with the hope of finding some loot along the way.

Thus, if you are "sub-optimal" then you are not really contributing as effectively to the party as you could otherwise.

So you could be a fighter, but then that is less "optimal" so impeding the progression of the entire party.

[Yuki Akuma]

If everyone's a caster, you waste far too many spell slots mopping up after battles. Best to have a few guys with large metal sticks they can use to execute your incapacitated foes.

Plus, being a noncaster can be fun.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

But at it's core DnD is a dungeon-bashing, monster-smashing game is it not?

When it comes down to it, regardless of what the social aspects are, its a case of destroying/overcoming one mob as quickly and efficiently as possible then moving on to the next, with the hope of finding some loot along the way.

Thus, if you are "sub-optimal" then you are not really contributing as effectively to the party as you could otherwise.

So you could be a fighter, but then that is less "optimal" so impeding the progression of the entire party.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at Paganboy, but I think it is going to make things turn out very badly.

And no, your logic is flawed. DnD is a game about having fun with people by killing things and taking their stuff. If you have fun and are able to kill things effectively, then you're doing fine.

[Saintjebus]

You are looking at TO(theoretical optimization) and looking at it like it's PO(practical optimization). Yes, by RAW, wizards are super awesome uber, and that way lies Tippyverse.

Rules As Played(RAP), however, tend to be quite different for a variety of reasons

(1. A lot of the "broken" things are banned or nerfed. Example: Planar Shephard, Incantrix, Polymorph, Celerity.

(2. Sometimes, your character idea will take precedence(yes, this really happens!) If I want to play a Drizz't clone, I won't take a Full caster class- I'll probably use ranger/fighter, or possibly ToB.

(3. The internet forums have the advantage of often having every sourcebook or equivalent at your fingertips. In an actual game, this is more rare.

(4. The DM. TO optimization takes place in a vacuum, with no arbiter but RAW. However, that's like saying the arbiter is Cthulhu-Blind, mute and stupid, but capable of much destruction. If shown some TO builds and asked to put them into a game, a lot of DMs will laugh at you.


Not an Edit: Ninja'ed I'm sure.

[Gamerlord]

Is this a troll or is this a troll? :smallannoyed:

Anyway, because being a caster is complicated, not everyone reads message boards, and some of us DON'T LIKE DYING AT FIRST LEVEL!

Also, in an unoptimized group, you can barley notice the power difference.

[Yuki Akuma]

*sigh*

Why do people always assume that you need to use cheesy optimisation tricks to make a caster better than a noncaster?

Even if you're both heavily unoptimised, the caster outshines the noncaster because he can do more than simply smack people with a sharp object.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Even if you're both heavily unoptimised, the caster outshines the noncaster because he can do more than simply smack people with a sharp object.

I submit as evidence my campaign journal which can be found in my sig.

[Gamerlord]

*sigh*

Why do people always assume that you need to use cheesy optimisation tricks to make a caster better than a noncaster?

Even if you're both heavily unoptimised, the caster outshines the noncaster because he can do more than simply smack people with a sharp object.

I mean in a group where nobody has a brain for optimization, and more often then not, a unoptimized caster is a blaster caster, and we know what lies down that path....

[Yuki Akuma]

I mean in a group where nobody has a brain for optimization, and more often then not, a unoptimized caster is a blaster caster, and we know what lies down that path....

I refuse to believe that anyone would prepare entirely direct-damage spells, by virtue of there not being enough direct-damage spells to entirely fill all his two-per-level free spells.

He's going to prepare something that isn't direct damage.

[Gamerlord]

I refuse to believe that anyone would prepare entirely direct-damage spells, by virtue of there not being enough direct-damage spells to entirely fill all his two-per-level free spells.

He's going to prepare something that isn't direct damage.

But not enough to get into the "OMGWTFBBQ OVER POWAHED" level of optimization.

[Yuki Akuma]

But not enough to get into the "OMGWTFBBQ OVER POWAHED" level of optimization.

But better than "I can do 50 damage per round... and that's it" melee builds.

[Kylarra]

But at it's core DnD is a dungeon-bashing, monster-smashing game is it not?

When it comes down to it, regardless of what the social aspects are, its a case of destroying/overcoming one mob as quickly and efficiently as possible then moving on to the next, with the hope of finding some loot along the way.

Thus, if you are "sub-optimal" then you are not really contributing as effectively to the party as you could otherwise.

So you could be a fighter, but then that is less "optimal" so impeding the progression of the entire party.Er, a common fallacy is that you need to be "as powerful as possible" in order to contribute to the party. This is false. You only need to be within a certain margin of competency that is shared by the rest of party. Tiers, so-called class rankings, and potential power levels are irrelevant in an actual game, what matters is your character's power level relative to the rest of the party.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Not everybody likes casters.

This. Yes, casters can obsolete every other party role. It's really ****ing annoying to do so, especially with an uncooperative GM (i.e. most GMs). And often it's less satisfying than just playing something meant for the role, power or not. Ease of use.

[Gamerlord]

Er, a common fallacy is that you need to be "as powerful as possible" in order to contribute to the party. This is false. You only need to be within a certain margin of competency that is shared by the rest of party. Tiers and potential power level are irrelevant in an actual game, what matters is your power level relative to the rest of the party.

I forgot about tiers! If everyone is a tier 2, will anyone see a difference in power level?

[Kylarra]

I forgot about tiers! If everyone is a tier 2, will anyone see a difference in power level?Tier 3 is usually given as the most balanced baseline for classes since tier 2 is still gamebreaking, just not in as many ways in a given build as tier 1, and you still have a fairly large range of options as tier 3 that slowly diminish as you move down the rankings.

[Gamerlord]

Tier 3 is usually given as the most balanced baseline for classes since tier 2 is still gamebreaking, just not in as many ways in a given build as tier 1, and you still have a fairly large range of options as tier 3 that slowly diminish as you move down the rankings.

And obviously, TPKs will happen like mad if the whole party is tier 6.

[Kylarra]

And obviously, TPKs will happen like mad if the whole party is tier 6.Well yes, but that's because no one wants to be a samurai.

[Draz74]

And obviously, TPKs will happen like mad if the whole party is tier 6.

Depends on the campaign and the DM. Joe Wood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign), for example, objects to your statement.

[Saintjebus]

D&D is a game. As such, it should be fun for all playing it. Now, some people derive their fun from analyzing the game and "breaking" it( for lack of a better word) That is entirely valid.


There are others for whom the fun is taking a character "out of the box" and just playing. That is also entirely valid.

Both playstyles are good. They just look different in practice however. And they're not even mutually exclusive. One person can enjoy both.

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, being a caster at low level sucks. My last caster (a level 2 Dread Necro) got beaten to death by a 10-year old half-orc. :smallfrown:

[NeoVid]

The tier 1 classes aren't the best in the game, they're just the most powerful. Gamewise, they can be some of the worst, since they can make it so hard for the game to work and be fun.

[Paganboy28]

Well I am only going on what i read in forums and my own experience.

Forums seem to be full of people wanting to maximise the potential of their characters and so obviously this is an issue that players like. Though I understand people don't want to play "useless" characters.

From my gaming experience nothing has ever really been "banned" and so pretty much RAW are what has happened. Maybe that is the problem.

[Temotei]

Well I am only going on what i read in forums and my own experience.

Forums seem to be full of people wanting to maximise the potential of their characters and so obviously this is an issue that players like. Though I understand people don't want to play "useless" characters.

From my gaming experience nothing has ever really been "banned" and so pretty much RAW are what has happened. Maybe that is the problem.

What I've read on these forums are people saying: "Don't use this build! It's only theoretical, and if you use it (and your DM allows it), you won't have as much fun as if you had just made your own character!" Or something along those lines. Casters can be the strongest, but they aren't necessarily the strongest. Optimization is lame, anyways. I think I'll post that in the lame things thread. :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

Forums seem to be full of people wanting to maximise the potential of their characters and so obviously this is an issue that players like.

The problem here is that you're not seeing all the other posts of people who don't care about making their characters super optimized, because those people simply don't post (if they're even lurking at all). People usually don't need help making a character to follow a particular flavor or style that's unrelated to character power, whereas people frequently seek assistance with character optimization.

This is simply a case of not finding any dogs in the hen house.

[Yuki Akuma]

What I've read on these forums are people saying: "Don't use this build! It's only theoretical, and if you use it (and your DM allows it), you won't have as much fun as if you had just made your own character!" Or something along those lines. Casters can be the strongest, but they aren't necessarily the strongest. Optimization is lame, anyways. I think I'll post that in the lame things thread. :smallbiggrin:

See also::


Unwritten Rule #15 of this board: He's not being serious. He is not going to use this in a game. He is only thinking about it so he has something to laugh about later.

[awa]

also it depends a lot on what level your playing at and what kinds of enemies your dm throws at you. Now a some one good at optimization can get around that but i remember several years ago where at level 9 or so my fighter was the most useful charecter in the party (and he used a war axe weapon specialization and a tower shield and improved sunder talk about unoptimized) and we had a sorcerer in the party.

No one was optimized the caster mostly just blasted stuff and fun was had by all. The dm was not deliberately going easy on us or specifically designing the encounter to let one charecter shine or not shine.

[Volkov]

A party of low level wizards is a party asking to get killed. The circle of eight only survives because they are near epic level, if not already at epic level.

[Dienekes]

Ok, having read lots of forum posts and so forth about the uberness of the caster classes in DnD 3.5, it does make me wonder if the other classes are more or less redundant.

If this is the case then why are they there? Why would anyone want to gimp themselves by playing something less than something more powerful?

Why isn't every DnD player rolling a caster and letting forth their uberness? Why are their parties with other classes in when caster can do more and better?


Does this concept then detract from the basic precepts of DnD (or what I thought) that in the dungeon-crawling the basic roles of the characters are:

tank, healer, damage dealer, and party face.

I like swords. I dislike magic. I like low magic campaigns. I don't care about being able to nuke the gods. Also, far more challenging in my opinion.

Answers the question, yeah?

[Draxar]

Well I am only going on what i read in forums and my own experience.

Forums seem to be full of people wanting to maximise the potential of their characters and so obviously this is an issue that players like. Though I understand people don't want to play "useless" characters.

These forums tend to be used for brainstorming, for going "Here's my concept, help me optimise it". Now, firstly, people generally come in either with a given concept that they want to optimise, or with a given level of optimisation they wish to reach. Now, some people will say "That which you are doing is painfully underpowered, do this instead", but mostly they don't jump to "Play a wizard instead", plus there are always people who will take what people want to play and help them do it.

As a general rule, people can come up with the fluff of their character reasonably well, but given the sheer number of books, it's hard to know the best way to do that.

I would say I'm fairly typical of many people on these boards in that I like to play 'efficient' characters – characters that can effectively get things done, that can perform actions appropriate to their concept adeptly, that have the capacity to affect and change the world. There are people who go "concept, concept, concept" and don't give a monkies about effectiveness, but they aren't the people who come here.


From my gaming experience nothing has ever really been "banned" and so pretty much RAW are what has happened. Maybe that is the problem.

It's a problem if people abuse the flaws in the rules. Like, say, making Pun Pun. If they don't, it's not a real problem.

[awa]

even if your looking for crazy powerful characters druids are a strong contender particularly at low levels, when the wizard is particularly vulnerable.

And while a wizard can easily be messed up becuase you favor blasting or more commonly in my experience being afraid of using your your spells (or using to many to early in the day) The druids really hard to mess up
Clerics are also very powerful

[Emmerask]

How can people who play 3.5 not know about the caster advantages!? its moaned about, commented on, glorified and so forth on pretty much every DnD forum.

not every d&d player is in a forum in my current group of 6 one is and thats all

[Temotei]

not every d&d player is in a forum in my current group of 6 one is and thats all

I recommend reading the forum rules. Use punctuation, capitalize letters, etc. :smallannoyed:

[Emmerask]

I recommend reading the forum rules. Use punctuation, capitalize letters, etc. :smallannoyed:

Nice an orthography lesson on the first day of the new year! :smallbiggrin:
so I gather you have nothing constructive to post and you are just "farming" for a better title?

btw not everyones first language is english :smallwink:

[Evard]

Even with the most optimized caster the right DM can destroy them. All they need is to prepare right and the wizard could be as useful as a commoner.


Example:

The wizard is in a room where the ceiling is falling (spikes on it) and the only way out is to get through a door. When the wizard tries to blast the door his sell is wasted and nothing happens. Later a fighter, rogue, and cleric come to outside the door, the fighter who is hardly optimized knocks the door down and see's a horribly squished thing in the middle of the floor. The rogue looks around and finds magical devices (that only a rogue could find) that keeps arcane magic from working in the room.

Now granted that some things may need to be changed around and stuff but you get the picture the DM can always find a way to mess over an optimized wizard when a non optimized rogue/fighter can get the job done easily.

[Aldizog]

even if your looking for crazy powerful characters druids are a strong contender particularly at low levels, when the wizard is particularly vulnerable.

And while a wizard can easily be messed up becuase you favor blasting or more commonly in my experience being afraid of using your your spells (or using to many to early in the day) The druids really hard to mess up
Clerics are also very powerful
True, but the point of playing a game is to maximize fun, not power. Druids do have a lot of power, but they are also a lot of paperwork. Variable wildshape stats, summoned creature stats, and animal companion stats. Summoning does provide an advantage, but it makes fights take longer to resolve. Grappling, a common tactic of druids, their summons, and their ACs, is another option that is powerful but can be a headache to resolve in certain cases.

For many players, the PHB druid is not going to provide anything near the optimal fun-to-gaming-time ratio.

[Yuki Akuma]

Even with the most optimized caster the right DM can destroy them. All they need is to prepare right and the wizard could be as useful as a commoner.


Example:

The wizard is in a room where the ceiling is falling (spikes on it) and the only way out is to get through a door. When the wizard tries to blast the door his sell is wasted and nothing happens. Later a fighter, rogue, and cleric come to outside the door, the fighter who is hardly optimized knocks the door down and see's a horribly squished thing in the middle of the floor. The rogue looks around and finds magical devices (that only a rogue could find) that keeps arcane magic from working in the room.

Now granted that some things may need to be changed around and stuff but you get the picture the DM can always find a way to mess over an optimized wizard when a non optimized rogue/fighter can get the job done easily.

So, basically, if your DM is an utter prick out to kill you, you're not powerful?

...Great argument there.

[Kylarra]

Even with the most optimized caster the right DM can destroy them. All they need is to prepare right and the wizard could be as useful as a commoner.


Example:

The wizard is in a room where the ceiling is falling (spikes on it) and the only way out is to get through a door. When the wizard tries to blast the door his sell is wasted and nothing happens. Later a fighter, rogue, and cleric come to outside the door, the fighter who is hardly optimized knocks the door down and see's a horribly squished thing in the middle of the floor. The rogue looks around and finds magical devices (that only a rogue could find) that keeps arcane magic from working in the room.

Now granted that some things may need to be changed around and stuff but you get the picture the DM can always find a way to mess over an optimized wizard when a non optimized rogue/fighter can get the job done easily.... So the DM can fiat your character's death. Woo great argument.

[Lycar]

True, but the point of playing a game is to maximize fun, not power.

This.

Optimization is pointles anyway (except to keep all players on roughly the same level of competency and preserve the enjoyment factor) because, no matter if your party consisty of tier 1s or tier 6s, the DM can ALWAYS force a TPK if so inclined.

If you optimize your character beyond a certain point, all you do is making it difficult for the DM to come up with encounters that hit that area between 'boring' and 'TPK'.

And D&D doesn't have to be any more about 'killing things & takin their stuff' then you make it. While the skill system is simple, it is still possible to have non-combat encounters, both of the puzze and RP/social interaction kind.

As hard to imagine as it might be, some people enjoy the RP aspect more and actual fights are just there to liven things up a bit but are (apart from climatic battles) just distractions from the 'real' game.

So yes, there is a point in all the other classes. Because casters are just that: Casters. Not fighting men, not savvy rogues or loveable bards etc. Sure, with the right spell-loadout they can 'fake' it. But they will always be imposters, even though the rules are so that they end up doing the things other classes do better then the original class.

In other words: The big ability of casters is to step on everybody's toes. Gues how popular that will make them (and by extension, their players!) with the rest of the party.

There is a fine line between 'Okay, I just won the encounter. Meatshields, start the mop-up.' and 'Quick, cut them down while my magic lasts, I don't know how long I can hold them back!' for example...

Of course, if you are cynical then the reason for other classes to exist is that casters can only be awesome compared to them. If everybody is super, no one really is... :smallamused:

Lycar

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: So not only is the basic premise of this thread problematic but people now want to use it insult entire playstyles, nitpick about grammar, and insult people over post count/title issues? Thread locked.