Why would somebody play an non-caster? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

INoKnowNames

2014-02-02, 03:35 AM

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system, magic has more options, and for me more options=more fun.

There's your answer right there. Not everyone is you, and not everyone thinks the same as you, or even similarly as you. A lot of people might, sure, but not everyone.

There isn't always a need to be the best at absolutely everything, so picking whatever is at the top of the tierlist isn't always the right answer.

I mean, why should I play a guy that hits real hard with a sword while I can be a wizard who summons elementals left and right, dominates the enemy, and so on?

Because maybe some people -want- to play the guy that hits real hard with a sword, and doesn't -want- to play the guy that summons elementals left and right, dominates the enemy, and so on?

It's a game. Unless you are getting real world compensation for it, your overall goal should be to have fun. If it is a competition of some kind, yeah, playing the strongest thing possible is probably your best bet, but for the (admittedly assumed) majority, we're playing a game to have fun. And some times the most simple option is also the most fun for us at the moment.

Tessman the 2nd

2014-02-02, 03:38 AM

Because: Roleplay

roko10

2014-02-02, 03:44 AM

Because: Roleplay

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

Mithril Leaf

2014-02-02, 03:47 AM

Because playing a caster is easy mode and I'm a bit masochistic?

Gemini476

2014-02-02, 03:47 AM

From an emotional standpoint, it's because people sometimes want to pretend to be King Arthur rather than Merlin.

From a logical standpoint, there's no real reason. The Fighter does not bring anything to a build that a Wizard could not do equally well.
Really, the Fighter doesn't have any class features of note (Bonus Feats Are Not a Class Feature), so there's no particular reason to play a Fighter rather than just dip it for two levels. (Although Zhentarim and Dungeoncrasher make it semi-viable until level 10.)

The Fighter in 3.5 is an awfully designed class by all measures. I'm pretty sure that the 3E Fighter is the worst Fighter in any edition of D&D, and that's including the 4E Essentials Fighters.

Also the CW Samurai one specific fear build that is pretty neat, so I wouldn't call it completely unplayable. Just nearly.

TypoNinja

2014-02-02, 03:49 AM

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

You are misusing the Fallacy. This isnt about Roll and Role play being mutually exclusive or not, what people are telling you is that its possible they want to roleplay something other than a batman wizard.

Edit: also, you optimize for the game you are in, if your DM is running premade adventures out of a Dragon mag and you bring a TO build, its kind of a jerk move.

BWR

2014-02-02, 03:49 AM

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

What's the fallacy where A incorrectly ascribes a fallacy to B?

Answer to the OP: because it's fun. Because I want to play something other than a caster. Because not everyone plays the sort of games where mundanes are completely overshadowed after a certain level.
Not everyone looks at the mechanics and decides to run the most powerful thing because it's the most powerful.

Eldan

2014-02-02, 03:53 AM

Honestly, I don't get it, either. I could see playing something mundane in a non-D&D system, even if it's not my thing. I like magic. But in D&D? Mundanes are just so damn boring. Even things like rogues who have a few tricks just look pale and uninteresting. It's not a power thing, either. If I had the choice of playing a level 25 rogue or a level 1 caster with three banned schools in the same campaign, I'd choose the latter.

TypoNinja

2014-02-02, 03:56 AM

Mithril Leaf

2014-02-02, 03:57 AM

Tommy2255

2014-02-02, 03:58 AM

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

He wasn't making that claim. He was saying that not everyone wants to roleplay as a wizard. Or a Druid or Cleric for that matter. Some people want to be the sneaky rogue, or the bold fighter, or the virtuous paladin, or the savage barbarian. Never playing anything except a Tier 1 caster limits the type of roleplay you can do. Which is not a problem if you always want to roleplay a wizard, but some people want to play the dummy whose reaction to problems is to yell "Me Smash Tiny Man!" and hit it with a piece of metal, preferably a greataxe, or a sneaky trickster who can get in and get out without anybody knowing he was there. And that becomes at the very least trickier to roleplay if you insist that you also have to be a caster.

INoKnowNames

2014-02-02, 04:05 AM

He wasn't making that claim. He was saying that not everyone wants to roleplay as a wizard. Or a Druid or Cleric for that matter. Some people want to be the sneaky rogue, or the bold fighter, or the virtuous paladin, or the savage barbarian. Never playing anything except a Tier 1 caster limits the type of roleplay you can do. Which is not a problem if you always want to roleplay a wizard, but some people want to play the dummy whose reaction to problems is to yell "Me Smash Tiny Man!" and hit it with a piece of metal, preferably a greataxe, or a sneaky trickster who can get in and get out without anybody knowing he was there. And that becomes at the very least trickier to roleplay if you insist that you also have to be a caster.

There was a quote in someone's signature that was something like that.

Playing to the Tiers is like eating: Sure, you could always go out for fine dining every night, but some times you just want to have some sushi or a cheese burger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

EugeneVoid

2014-02-02, 04:07 AM

this is one of those trollbait threads again, innit?

roko10

2014-02-02, 04:09 AM

this is one of those trollbait threads again, innit?

Yes. Yes it is.

OldTrees1

2014-02-02, 04:23 AM

Have you ever noticed how different mechanics feel different? The difference in the texture of the mechanics between casters and non-casters is noticeable enough that some have developed preferences towards one texture or the other.

Personally I greatly prefer the feel of abilities with unlimited uses over abilities with limited uses. This encourages me to play non casters despite being a lower tier.

Dayaz

2014-02-02, 04:38 AM

Because my rogue can create an Anti Magic Dome with the right items, and then he will go omnomnom on the pretty little wizard?

And considering I can use the scroll from stealth, I can keep a wizard from even knowing it's going to happen until it's too late.

Thanatosia

2014-02-02, 05:01 AM

Eventually Casters do just win at D&D. BUt most campaigns in my experience end before they get to that point. For most of D&D, the best casters play GOD as described by Teantmonk's Guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0). The thing about the GOD wizard, is that it is pure support. You buff your allies, debuff your enemies, manipulate the battlefield.... but ultimately it is the rest of the party that still does most of the real action in combat.

Unless you cheese the heck out of Polymorph or a few other key spells and make yourself a combat monster, you really should'nt be overshadowing the party in combat. If you are doing so, slap yourself for making the game less fun for the rest of the party in most cases. YOu could go CoDzilla, and Druids almost have to be careful not to become combat machines by accident.... but as long as the casters tacitely agree to primarily play a support role or a clasic blaster and not try to find ways to bend the spirit of the game to be a better fighter then the fighters - the game is perfectly fun for the mundanes as well as the casters.

Chadamantium

2014-02-02, 05:14 AM

I feel like you've missed the point of DnD which is for everyone to have fun, not just your fun. Sure, your wizard is a great encounter obliterating powerhouse but maybe my samurai comes from a broken home and is out to redeem his family's honor through pain and strife and bad mechanics.

Norin

2014-02-02, 05:26 AM

If you want to read 28 pages on the same topic, you will find a long thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267020) I made a while ago, asking the same question. :smallwink:

JW86

2014-02-02, 05:39 AM

It depends on how you play the game.

If I were playing to win, I'd go with a caster or gish.

If I was playing because, as a role playing game, I wanted to play the role of a sneaky dude, or a rough-cut mercenary, or an ex-member of the city guard, and go on an adventure of intrigue and discovery and yes, fighting a few orcs along the way, I might choose a Rogue or Fighter. Because that would be interesting and fun for me.

Besides, melee guys can be cool and tough too. I'm kind of in love with the Swordsage at the moment.

SinsI

2014-02-02, 06:14 AM

Far less options, and far less chances to misuse them = far easier to play.
You also don't need to have insane precognition abilities when choosing what spells to learn or memorise each day.
You can also don't worry that much about your character creation - getting a Level Adjustment or subpar class level is nowhere near as bad for non-caster as for casters that really hurt with each level that don't advance their spellcasting abilities.

Spore

2014-02-02, 06:27 AM

I like the fluff. Anyone could save the world as a flame and magic wielding high sorcerer of greatitude! It takes a real hero to save the world only with a big sharp piece of metal and her own wits. Also usually the wizards of settings are portrayed as high level overminds while heroes are your average joe.

Ivanhoe

2014-02-02, 06:44 AM

Mundanes are fun to play and contribute to the group well enough at least at the low levels.
Problems arise also at the low levels, though, when DMs allows things like abrupt jaunt, uber animal companions, divine metamagic / persistent spell, heart of water etc.

Manly Man

2014-02-02, 06:50 AM

Besides, melee guys can be cool and tough too. I'm kind of in love with the Swordsage at the moment.

I was wondering when someone would bring up Tome of Battle. Gahd, I love that stuff. Half-giant Warblade who's managed to get Deep Impact and combine it with Diamond Nightmare Blade is just so satisfying.

Der_DWSage

2014-02-02, 07:00 AM

There's also the fact that Fighters, Barbarians, and other melee classes are simpler. Sure, Wizards and Clerics can always have the right tool for a job...if you have several years of experience backing you so that you can be genre-savvy enough to know what toolkit to bring. If you don't, then you're likely to either prepare the wrong spell and feel useless. And you don't even have the hammer that melee classes do, so not everything looks like a nail.

And there's always gonna be some newbie at the table who takes one look at wizards, realizes that half the PHB is devoted to spellcasting, and just goes 'I think I'll play a Barbarian instead. That seems easier.'

Prince Raven

2014-02-02, 07:09 AM

Because I don't play to win, I play to have fun, and a Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid super party is boring.

Killer Angel

2014-02-02, 01:10 PM

I mean, casters are ridiculously broken and kick ass at anything, while mundanes got (almost) nothing that matches their power.

So why would somebody play an fighter then, if it sucks beyond belief?*

*I chose Fighter because while CW Samurai sucks more, nobody plays CW Samurai.

Where are your skills, if you use a T1? everyone is able to "win" with that.

Real optimizers use samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125885).

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-02, 05:15 PM

Replicate this moment as a Wizard and I might consider playing one:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/250/1/4/link_vs_ganondorf_by_christel2-d495mxb.jpg

Where are your skills, if you use a T1? everyone is able to "win" with that.

Real optimizers use samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125885).

Thank you. I'm trying but I can't put it better than this.

Kelb_Panthera

2014-02-02, 05:17 PM

There was a quote in someone's signature that was something like that.

Playing to the Tiers is like eating: Sure, you could always go out for fine dining every night, but some times you just want to have some sushi or a cheese burger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I remember that quote. IIRC, it goes;

"Only playing T1's is like only ever eating fillet mignon. Sometimes you just want a freakin' hamburger."

It's an apt analogy too. Playing T1 classes takes a much greater degree of skill and preparation vs the relative ease of building and operating -most- lower tier classes. Building a monk is like making a left-overs casserole it's really easy to make but, if you're not careful with what you put into it, it's going to be gross.

Anywho, I can't speak for others but, personally, I like playing non-casters for a couple reasons.

I enjoy the tactical challenges inherent in not having a solution to every problem built into a class feature.

Playing casters for too long, having a spell for every situation, dulls situational awareness for me. If I can conjure whatever terrain and obstacles I choose, I don't need to pay attention what's already there.

Getting up close and personal with foes is a helluva rush. Testing your mettle face to face, nothing but a blade or bludgeon, a few metal plates, and my wits to keep me in one piece.... Hells yeah! (The fact that those bits of metal are magically enhanced not withstanding. :smalltongue:)

Most non-caster NPC's tend to trust other non-casters more readily than some robe-wearing weirdo that bends reality or some religious fanatic that answers to some eldritch being that you can't see and have no real hope of understanding.

Sometimes you just want a freakin' hamburger. :smallwink:

Tengu_temp

2014-02-02, 05:22 PM

Because Tome of Battle classes, which are the best thing in DND 3e (and I will duel you at dawn if you disagree), are technically not casters.

Juntao112

2014-02-02, 05:29 PM

Because Tome of Battle classes, which are the best thing in DND 3e (and I will duel you at dawn if you disagree), are technically not casters.

Challenge accepted.

Manly Man

2014-02-02, 05:35 PM

Because Tome of Battle classes, which are the best thing in DND 3e (and I will duel you at dawn if you disagree), are technically not casters.

No need to duel me here.

Eldonauran

2014-02-02, 05:52 PM

I've given a lot of thought to why I would play a melee / mudane character over a spellcaster.

Phenomenal cosmic power? That's a lot of responsibility and even more book-keeping, depending on the caster. That's a lot of research, in-character.

Ability to arm wrestle a storm giant without the aid of magic? Now, that's a challenge!

I like to play all manner of characters. Barbarians, Fighters, Monks (i have a special place in my heart for them), Paladins (love them too), Rogues, Rangers, etc, etc. My favorites are spellcasters. Sorcerer / Druid / Mystic Theurge is where I call myself home.

But sometimes, you just need to roll up a halfling barbarian and make the large folks eat their words when they call you pint-sized.

I'm in this game for a challenge. When I play spellcasters, it is because I am filling a role in the party that needs taken care of. I make sure I have fun doing so but a spellcaster is never my first choice.

Togo

2014-02-02, 06:05 PM

Because they're good at it?

Playing a non-caster is a different sort of challenge. You need better situational awareness, you really need to understand how raising and lowering numbers effects your probabilities, and have a keen understanding of opportunity costs. Being good at a playing a caster doesn't mean you can play a lower tier well.

Pesimismrocks

2014-02-02, 06:37 PM

The reason why I dislike playing casters is the same reason I don't play Pun Pun. Why would I ever want to play a character with an instant win button. I like to roleplay out campaigns, taking it slowly and grabbing the plot hooks the DM throws at us. An optimized wizard can teleport to the end of a dungeon, obliterate the boss and stride out without breaking a sweat and with no chance of breaking his nails. To me, being able to do everything is boring, and I prefer the players having deprecate areas they are good at so everyone has a chance to have fun.

cakellene

2014-02-02, 08:16 PM

Because I don't like playing casters, too much bookkeeping and planning. I either play some variant of monk or a wildshape druid.

Kaje

2014-02-02, 08:32 PM

Because I despise Vancian casting so very very much and I think the full-caster archetypes are dull as hell.

Of course, most of my builds still have some sort of magic, be it binding, dragonmarks, turning into a bear, or whatever.

The Trickster

2014-02-02, 10:12 PM

I mean, casters are ridiculously broken and kick ass at anything, while mundanes got (almost) nothing that matches their power.

So why would somebody play an fighter then, if it sucks beyond belief?*

*I chose Fighter because while CW Samurai sucks more, nobody plays CW Samurai.

Because playing on easy mode gets boring after a while.

BrokenChord

2014-02-02, 10:28 PM

I don't get it either. You're playing a game about fantasy... You want to play on easy mode, play a non-optimized caster. Whoopdie-frakkin-doo. Plus, even casters aren't on easy mode when up against other casters. Non-casting is for mooks, summons, and low-level Paladins/Rangers/Hexblades/etc. who need to wait a little while to hit their stride.

I guess this depends on what you define as casting, though. I'm including things that don't have end-all-be-all godly powers in the "casting" boat, like Invokers, Manifesters, and so on. Hell, there was a time in the past I even considered it a non-heresy to call ToB classes casters, though I have outgrown this opinion in favor of shouting "lolmeleesuxxx!!!11!1" at ToB-players too.

No, I don't actually do that.

But yeah. I love casters of all varieties much more than I could ever love a mundane. You want to play around with hitting stuff? There are so many spells and gishy classes for doing that, it hurts me to hear somebody ask about that. I mean, they've all just got a ton more flavor, too. I can't think of anything somebody would want to do with a fighter or Barbarian that they can't be extremely similar to with casters. Some spells can even just be refluffed as surpassing the limits of physical capability and somesuch.

So there's no real reason for somebody like me to play a non-caster, regardless of op-level or really any other concern. I want to tone it down, I'll play a weaker caster that doesn't, in fact, have a spell to solve every problem.

I think the core of your question, however, is something I'm much better suited to answer. What you mean, I'm guessing, is "why don't we all play overpowered things"?

And, well, that's already been answered in detail, but suffice to say, because some of us actually enjoy not breaking the game and breezing through everything. Not much point of playing if you can take everything that easily, is there?

ZamielVanWeber

2014-02-02, 11:05 PM

Replicate this moment as a Wizard and I might consider playing one:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/250/1/4/link_vs_ganondorf_by_christel2-d495mxb.jpg

Transformation. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm)

I honestly enjoy gishes and paladins (along with the T3 casters) a lot. It is fun to either work within limitations, but I love having options. Also the flavor of paladin is so cool I cannot resist (plus they get a few neato prestige classes).

Red Fel

2014-02-02, 11:21 PM

I see your question, and raise you an inversion: Why would somebody play a caster?

Yes, they have power and versatility on their side (well, the T1s do; lower-tier casters get a bit less versatile). But have you seen the bookkeeping involved?

Your Cleric knows all of the Cleric spells. Do you? Seriously, do you? Because I can list off the top of my head, I don't know, twenty, tops, without having to look at a document; maybe five if you actually wanted me to tell you what they did and how to roll them. And if you plan to be useful as a caster-Cleric, you want to know that you can prepare the most useful spells for the occasion - and that means knowing what spells you can prepare.

And Wizard? Wizard is even worse. Sweet molasses, have you seen the list of arcane spells dotting the 3.5 landscape? It's an accounting nightmare! And don't even get me started on the Psion.

Heck, even a gish like Duskblade, or a melee-plus class like Swordsage, gets his nice, simple list of abilities. Melee is easier for me. When I'm at work, I read mountains of paperwork; I don't want to have to do that in D&D as well. Give me my list of simple attack actions (full attack, touch attack, maneuvers, maybe some melee channeling) and let me enjoy the simplicity.

That's the great thing about non-casters. The expectations are low. "Grunt, what're you going to do?" "Grunt smash faces." "Good job, Grunt. Keep at it." If things go south, you did what you could, no hard feelings. But for a caster? There are a million things you could have done if you'd thought about it long enough. There's always that spell you could have prepared, or the one you wasted on that stupid kobold party earlier, and somehow people complain that you didn't buff enough, or should have used that area-effect spell, or shouldn't have used that area-effect spell... Who needs that kind of responsibility?

Coidzor

2014-02-02, 11:23 PM

Well, binders are pretty neat, though I don't think they really count as mundanes. OTOH, they don't really feel like casters either. Same for the Totemist and Incarnate, though Incarnates do lag after around mid-level, IIRC.

Replicate this moment as a Wizard and I might consider playing one:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/250/1/4/link_vs_ganondorf_by_christel2-d495mxb.jpg

Hm? :smallconfused:

Ganondorf is a gish, though he strikes me as more of a sorcerer-gish from the powers he typically displays, call him a Paladin of Tyranny Sorcadin, even. Link also has magical power as well, though he might be more like a Suel Arcanamach or Knight of the Weave or something like a halfcaster along the lines of a Ranger/Pally/Hexblade, given he doesn't display all that much of it. Then again, he could just be another gish that went more martial heavy before PrCs became available.

TypoNinja

2014-02-02, 11:29 PM

Raven777

2014-02-02, 11:35 PM

Why would somebody play an non-caster?

Because most adventuring parties are more entertaining to be a part of when there are mixed roles, and this is a game I play for entertainment. Do not misunderstand, I wouldn't trade my Sorcerer for all the souls in the world, but I rather enjoy the company of barbarians and rogues. I like to think we appreciate what we each bring to the table. To sum up : I have no problem with people playing non-casters as long as it isn't me :P

PS : I wouldn't ever play a Cleric or Wizard. The book keeping, oh god the book keeping. Go Sorcerer and never look back!

eggynack

2014-02-02, 11:38 PM

I actually agree, except, y'know, just for me. I like having approximately infinite choices in any given situation, with each one plausibly being the best one. I like using a mass of BFC to slow combat to a crawl before killing the opponent by having my yellow musk creeper summons musk puff them until they fail a save. I like doing massive amounts of bookkeeping, keeping track of a massive pile of forms, summons, and other stuff simultaneously, seeking out obscure spells and forms into the night. I like being able to change everything about myself from day to day, or even from round to round. I don't think everyone necessarily likes those things though.

Phelix-Mu

2014-02-03, 12:34 AM

The sword-swinger is iconic. And, imho, just as valuable to the setting as the caster. If everyone was a wizard, the world would be quite strange, and there would be a dearth of non-mindraped pawns creatures out there ("there used to be some goblins up in yonder hills, but then they caught a terminal case of fireballs").

I've been playing Exalted lately, and I have to say that it is quite refreshing to have a system where the "awesome" is handed out across the board, and is just as attributable to role playing creativity as hardcore crunch synergy. I still love D&D a la 3e, but I wouldn't mind seeing some major inroads made toward leveling the playing field.

Perhaps I will set tier limits in our next D&D campaign. Funny, cause I am really the only one that really likes to milk the optimization cow in my group.

Forrestfire

2014-02-03, 01:16 AM

Short version: "Because I play a character, not a class."

Long version: When I build a character, I start with a concept. This starting concept might be simple as "he's a swordsman who retired from the military" or it could go and be complex, like... "they're a quartet of souls trapped in one ghostly body, that alternate control and form, and each of them has their own personality and skillset" or "this is a woman who studied at as a combat mage at a wizard college to follow in the footsteps of her great-great aunt, and her dissertation was a unique ritual that increased her physical strength and speed, but vents raw power in the shape of a halo above her head."

In any case, I sometimes might end up being a caster, and I sometimes won't. The hypothetical swordsman might be a warblade or fighter, or something. Maybe he'll pick up some magic on his adventurers and dip into Suel Arcanamach for some versatility, but otherwise he's not really a spellcaster. The latter two are characters I played; the ghosts used the Factotum class to represent having a bunch of skillsets (including spellcasting), and the combat mage was an Illumian Swiftblade.

The important thing, though, was that the classes came after the characters, and once I'd gotten to a point where the build felt right, then I was done building. For two of those, I played a non-caster because it fit the character better, that's all.

Stygofthedump

2014-02-03, 01:22 AM

A simple balance fix is for the DM to make it very difficult to rest in hostile environments, dungeons etc. casters will then need to take a back seat and conserve their spells while the fighters do the damage.

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-03, 01:31 AM

Transformation. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm)
That's... just quite not THERE. Link doesn't strike me as a Warrior 20... (Read below)

I honestly enjoy gishes and paladins (along with the T3 casters) a lot. It is fun to either work within limitations, but I love having options. Also the flavor of paladin is so cool I cannot resist (plus they get a few neato prestige classes).
Oh yes! I've been trying to pump up a Grey Guard, they're feel is just SO RIGHT, you know?!

Hm? :smallconfused:

Ganondorf is a gish, though he strikes me as more of a sorcerer-gish from the powers he typically displays, call him a Paladin of Tyranny Sorcadin, even. Link also has magical power as well, though he might be more like a Suel Arcanamach or Knight of the Weave or something like a halfcaster along the lines of a Ranger/Pally/Hexblade, given he doesn't display all that much of it. Then again, he could just be another gish that went more martial heavy before PrCs became available.

Well yes, I was referring to Link rather than Ganon (I might enjoy playing him... in SSBB. That kind of BBEG, those who are doomed to fail every time aren't really that amusing). But yeah, we can agree he's a Gish.

Link though. Link is OBVIOUSLY a Warblade 10/Eternal Soul 10. I mean Eternal Souls even get their own freaking Navi!

ChaoticDitz

2014-02-03, 01:43 AM

That's... just quite not THERE. Link doesn't strike me as a Warrior 20... (Read below)

Oh yes! I've been trying to pump up a Grey Guard, they're feel is just SO RIGHT, you know?!

Well yes, I was referring to Link rather than Ganon (I might enjoy playing him... in SSBB. That kind of BBEG, those who are doomed to fail every time aren't really that amusing). But yeah, we can agree he's a Gish.

Link though. Link is OBVIOUSLY a Warblade 10/Eternal Soul 10. I mean Eternal Souls even get their own freaking Navi!

Hey! Listen!

......

Someone said my name.

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-03, 01:48 AM

Hey! Listen!

......

Someone said my name.

Correction: A Navi who has gone through steep reeducation and is now not only unannoying, but also helpful.

PD: You made me laugh.

Pan151

2014-02-03, 02:06 AM

Because sometimes people want to be guy that charges into the battle head-first and gives zero cares.

Also, just because T1 classes have a higher power ceiling does not mean that in an average game a properly built lower tier character cannot stay relevant. Mundanes can also choose from a wider variety of races/templates than casters (a barbarian can afford the RHD and LA of most monsters, because in the end the racial bonuses often give a net bonus over the lost class levels. A wizard cannot afford anything that's not LA+0), can make better use of magical item than most casters (give a rogue a wand and they suddenly have lots of spells. Give a cleric a wand and they can maybe save up on a couple healing spell slots).

Fighter 20 is still a stupid thing to build, for obvious reasons, but then again give that Fighter a ring of permanent Anti-Magic Field and watch all those haughty spellcasters flee in terror :smallbiggrin:

Mithril Leaf

2014-02-03, 02:28 AM

Fighter 20 is still a stupid thing to build, for obvious reasons, but then again give that Fighter a ring of permanent Anti-Magic Field and watch all those haughty spellcasters flee in terror :smallbiggrin:

You mean pop back to their personally demiplanes because they're just astral projections, but the sentiment isn't all too bad.

kailkay

2014-02-03, 02:28 AM

The way I see it, you can be the kind of guy who erases whole genealogical lines without a second thought, or you can be the kind of guy who has songs sung about him when he valorously gives his life during an epic siege battle, so that others might have a chance to live.

Those are your choices. There is no middle ground. I pick the hero, every time. Not the sociopath.

Edit: Also, actual reason: At low levels, smash-em characters win every time. Casters get powerful in the umpteens. Warriors typically try not to let them get to that point.

Pan151

2014-02-03, 02:39 AM

You mean pop back to their personally demiplanes because they're just astral projections, but the sentiment isn't all too bad.

Well, I didn't say he would ever actually do anything to them , just that he'd scare them away.

HammeredWharf

2014-02-03, 02:45 AM

TuggyNE

2014-02-03, 02:58 AM

The way I see it, you can be the kind of guy who erases whole genealogical lines without a second thought, or you can be the kind of guy who has songs sung about him when he valorously gives his life during an epic siege battle, so that others might have a chance to live.

Those are your choices. There is no middle ground. I pick the hero, every time. Not the sociopath.

What does that have to do with being a mundane or a caster? :smallconfused: No, seriously, what? (Also, I think the other members of the Order of the Stick might be just a tad annoyed that you appear to think they don't exist.)

ChaoticDitz

2014-02-03, 03:06 AM

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-03, 03:40 AM

What does that have to do with being a mundane or a caster? :smallconfused: No, seriously, what? (Also, I think the other members of the Order of the Stick might be just a tad annoyed that you appear to think they don't exist.)

That has NOTHING to do with class. Also, it's already bad enough with nine fairly broad and almost decently-covering alignments. You will NOT succeed in trying to narrow down every character ever into two archetypes.

Maybe he meant that that's what it comes down to if you play a Batman Wizard? That's how I read it the first time but now I'm not so sure... I wouldn't even agree with that...

Huh...

Knaight

2014-02-03, 03:53 AM

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system, magic has more options, and for me more options=more fun.

That's a very good reason for you to not play a non-caster. I'd consider the options-fun relation to be one of quickly diminishing returns, where the difference between having three options and having five is a big deal, where the difference between having twenty and twenty two isn't. As such, ToB classes, the warlock, etc. tend to work for me. Then it's just a matter of what fits for the character I have in mind.

That said, the dearth of options for mundane characters is among the reasons that I don't play D&D 3.x that much anymore.

TuggyNE

2014-02-03, 04:26 AM

Maybe he meant that that's what it comes down to if you play a Batman Wizard? That's how I read it the first time but now I'm not so sure... I wouldn't even agree with that...

I think it's supposed to be (a flanderized) Roy vs V. But even that doesn't seem entirely reasonable within the context of OotS itself, never mind "every other game ever".

Jon_Dahl

2014-02-03, 04:30 AM

Trying to handle spells and complex - sometimes even unclear - class features is not for me. I'd be happy to take a simple character. No one will ask my fighter to heal anyone or cast the same spells over and over again.

Playing a simple character is relaxing and I like relaxing more than defeating imaginary enemies.

Artillery

2014-02-03, 05:33 AM

When I first started playing I liked the martial classes. Then I got to play with Tome of Battle classes and it was like getting to play the other classes but with options. Then I got to play Pathfinder with Psionics, and being able to change things with Psychic Reformation whenever we had down time made me see how incredibly flexible they can be.

Is a bard who can have all his spells known changed with 10 minutes notice considered tier 2, even if its because of a nice synergy with a team mate?

I usually play to the role the party needs. I also prefer spontaneous casters for most of those.

I am a big fan of the Crusader and Warblade when I am the frontliner, though I do enjoy some specialized Barbarian occasionally.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 09:24 AM

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system

Why would you dogmatically follow anything? When I read that, I see "yeah, but if you turn your brain off..."

The tier system is just a tool to give you a rough idea of what class A will be capable of, and what kind of campaign will fit them best. It's a starting point for the DM to start making adjustments as needed, not an end point to tell the player "and therefore, play X or you are doing it wrong."

sjeshin

2014-02-03, 09:41 AM

I mean, casters are ridiculously broken and kick ass at anything, while mundanes got (almost) nothing that matches their power.

So why would somebody play an fighter then, if it sucks beyond belief?*

*I chose Fighter because while CW Samurai sucks more, nobody plays CW Samurai.

Go read a book from The Saxon Tales and tell me you don't want to be a viking warlord who crushes people into the dirt.

Red Fel

2014-02-03, 09:41 AM

Why would you dogmatically follow anything? When I read that, I see "yeah, but if you turn your brain off..."

The tier system is just a tool to give you a rough idea of what class A will be capable of, and what kind of campaign will fit them best. It's a starting point for the DM to start making adjustments as needed, not an end point to tell the player "and therefore, play X or you are doing it wrong."

This. The Tier system should be descriptive, not predictive. The Tier system should make people aware of the abilities and limitations of a class, relative to other classes. In a vacuum, it should not be used to tell people what they should and should not play.

That's what these forums are for.

Now, a DM might tell his players that he only wants Tier 2-4 classes, for the sake of balance and control in the campaign. Or a player may wish to only play Tiers 1-2, for the feeling of power attendant to such classes. But that's based on the individual determination of what matters. The Tier system itself does not say "these classes are better than those, and you should choose these classes over those every day." The system simply tells you what you can expect. Do you intend to be good at one thing? Very good at one thing? Good at everything? Good at nothing? A Truenamer? The Tier system tells you what to expect, not what to play.

"Dogmatically follow[ing] the tier system" is like dogmatically following the dictionary - the book simply tells you what the words mean, not which words are better.

Gwendol

2014-02-03, 09:42 AM

OldTrees1

2014-02-03, 09:43 AM

This. The Tier system should be descriptive, not predictive. The Tier system should make people aware of the abilities and limitations of a class, relative to other classes. In a vacuum, it should not be used to tell people what they should and should not play.

Did you mean descriptive not prescriptive? (I assume it was a typo)

Red Fel

2014-02-03, 09:45 AM

Did you mean descriptive not prescriptive? (I assume it was a typo)

Actually, I meant predictive; but you're right, prescriptive is a better word.

nobodez

2014-02-03, 09:50 AM

I enjoy playing both casters and non-casters. For casters, yeah, I love the versatility, the buffing of the non-casters, and the owning of the encounters, but there's also a lot of bookkeeping and administration (as my Mom says as she counts the rounds remaining on her party-wide buffs, "more dots").

As for non-casters, if you're playing with well played casters, they can be a lot of fun, because the only administration you have is adding bonuses to you Attack, a Damage, and AC, and figuring out if you can eke out a higher ground bonus against the enemy if you flew that bit much higher (since your caster was awesome and cast fly and haste on you earlier, as well as Prot. Evil and Death Ward so you don't have to worry about the enemy spells).

I'm playing a non-caster in my current campaign, after playing two casters (cleric with a wizard cohort) in the previous campaign. I'll go back to playing the caster next campaign (if I don't GM).

Emperor Tippy

2014-02-03, 10:31 AM

Because their character concept involves a non-caster?

Or because they want to be lazy?

Or because they don't want to do the book keeping?

Or because they find it more fun?

ChaoticDitz

2014-02-03, 10:32 AM

This. The Tier system should be descriptive, not predictive. The Tier system should make people aware of the abilities and limitations of a class, relative to other classes. In a vacuum, it should not be used to tell people what they should and should not play.

That's what these forums are for.

Can I sig this? That made me laugh really hard.

SouthpawSoldier

2014-02-03, 10:35 AM

Both of my reasons have already been mentioned; bookkeeping, and low-level campaigns.

I enjoy research and reading; pretty sure thats universal in our subculture. But the only person at the table with a laptop should be the DM; I think it really sucks life out of a game to stop and dig out the right spell for the circumstance.

Also, I've only been in one 3.5 campaign that reached level 6. Aside from magical traps, my McStabbity Stab-Stab lummox really shone during encounters. It was fun to have thews, and actually nice to RP out of my natural behavior. I spend most of my time thinking; I found it much more relaxing and fun to let the wordy guy talk, the smelly guy think, and and boil my interactions to two questions; "Can I eat it?" and "Can it eat me?" (Non human barb; not canibalistic, but opportunistic).

Red Fel

2014-02-03, 10:35 AM

Can I sig this? That made me laugh really hard.

Please do. :smallwink:

Shining Wrath

2014-02-03, 10:52 AM

Because you're playing a CHARACTER, not a collection of powers.

Because Conan, Aragorn, Boromir, Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D'artagnan, and Fafhrd, among others, are some of the most interesting people in fantasy literature.

Because the protagonist of just about every FRP video game you've ever seen is like Cloud McStrife, not like Aerith Gainsborough.

It's fun to be the badass who can take on a giant with nothing but his own brawn and a length of steel.

If your sole point is playing D&D is to always, every encounter, be the one who displays the most power, don't come play with me. I'll mock you with no mercy.

This. The Tier system should be descriptive, not predictive. The Tier system should make people aware of the abilities and limitations of a class, relative to other classes. In a vacuum, it should not be used to tell people what they should and should not play.

That's what these forums are for.

Now, a DM might tell his players that he only wants Tier 2-4 classes, for the sake of balance and control in the campaign. Or a player may wish to only play Tiers 1-2, for the feeling of power attendant to such classes. ... SNIP ...

"Dogmatically follow[ing] the tier system" is like dogmatically following the dictionary - the book simply tells you what the words mean, not which words are better.

My next campaign our DM hath decreed that we can single-class Tier I or Tier II, or gestalt Tiers III, IV, or V, with an exclusion of no double Tier III. I'm leaning toward a Sorcerer with Stormborn PRC if I can big-deal him into allowing me a bloodline for free (because otherwise Sorcerers tend to be like other Sorcerers), or a Cleric with Malconvoker PRC, one level dip into UA Conjurer because fast summons are Teh Awesome Sauce.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-03, 11:12 AM

Because some people can't play casters well. Because some peple don't have time to play casters well.

*I chose Fighter because while CW Samurai sucks more, nobody plays CW Samurai.

Actually I'm playing in a group consisting of: Druid, Wizard, Dragonfireadept and CW samurai...

jedipotter

2014-02-03, 11:14 AM

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system, magic has more options, and for me more options=more fun.

The ''more options=more fun'' is wrong. It only sounds good, so everyone says they like it and agree with it.

It is like saying it is ''more fun'' to have several things to pick from to have for dinner. But it does not matter how many things you can pick from. You will only eat what you like. And you can only eat one meal for dinner. So even if you had ten more meals they would not do you any good for dinner.

Seerow

2014-02-03, 11:23 AM

The ''more options=more fun'' is wrong. It only sounds good, so everyone says they like it and agree with it.

It is like saying it is ''more fun'' to have several things to pick from to have for dinner. But it does not matter how many things you can pick from. You will only eat what you like. And you can only eat one meal for dinner. So even if you had ten more meals they would not do you any good for dinner.

But a game of D&D isn't just a single meal. It's a series of meals. Possibly a series of meals going on for a very long time, maybe as long as a few months.

Would you rather eat something different every night, and come back to your favorites a little more often? Or would you rather eat the same thing for every meal for the next two months?

Even if you really love that meal, most likely you will eventually get tired of it and want to eat something else.

So going back away from the analogy, a D&D campaign isn't just a single session. A typical campaign will last usually at least 5-10 sessions. If you're playing a long running campaign, it could easily got for 5-10x that. With 1-4 combats every session, that's a very long time doing the same thing day in and day out. Meanwhile a more versatile character could be switching things up regularly to keep it fresh.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 11:24 AM

Because the protagonist of just about every FRP video game you've ever seen is Cloud McStrife, not Aerith Gainsborough.

I'm fine with your other points, but it's worth noting that there are plenty of caster protagonists out there too. Putting aside the ones like Elder Scrolls/Dragon Age where you can build the protagonist yourself, there's still set examples like Terra Branford, Yuna, Crono, Ness, Micaiah, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter etc.

It's not all plucky muggles beating the odds with their wits and swordarm - there are plucky mages too.

Even if you really love that meal, most likely you will eventually get tired of it and want to eat something else.

Possibly. I know people who can literally eat the same meal for days on end without getting tired of it.

But the thing is, it's easy for the DM to fix you a new meal (in the form of stapling some additional abilities or a swiss army magical item to your character) if that boredom does start to happen. So you still don't have to pick a high-tier class from the get-go if you don't want to.

Kudaku

2014-02-03, 11:25 AM

It is like saying it is ''more fun'' to have several things to pick from to have for dinner. But it does not matter how many things you can pick from. You will only eat what you like. And you can only eat one meal for dinner. So even if you had ten more meals they would not do you any good for dinner.

Let's continue using that metaphor but take into consideration multiple meals (or a campaign that goes over multiple levels):

Non-casters get steak. Steak's great. Steak tastes nice. Steak's nourishing. However, after a week or so you kind of start craving something else. After two weeks you're desperate for anything that's not steak. After a month or two, you're going to start dying from malnutrition, since all you're eating is steak and steak alone isn't going to provide you with all the nutrients you need to stay healthy.

Conversely, (full) casters get the full menu. They can have chicken, fish, fruit, salad, vegetables, potato chips, chocolate, whatever they want. Including steak.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 11:29 AM

Non-casters get steak. Steak's great. Steak tastes nice. Steak's nourishing. However, after a week or so you kind of start craving something else. After two weeks you're desperate for anything that's not steak. After a month or two, you're going to start dying from malnutrition, since all you're eating is steak and steak alone isn't going to provide you with all the nutrients you need to stay healthy.

This is hyperbole. You're not going to die from playing a low tier class; lack of abilities and lack of vitamins don't equate.

A better analogy is eating nothing but steak while taking vitamin supplements, versus the caster's full menu. At worst there you will be bored with steak, but you won't keel over.

Kudaku

2014-02-03, 11:33 AM

This is hyperbole. You're not going to die from playing a low tier class; lack of abilities and lack of vitamins don't equate.

A better analogy is eating nothing but steak while taking vitamin supplements, versus the caster's full menu. At worst there you will be bored with steak, but you won't keel over.

I admit I didn't read the full thread but I thought we were discussing casters vs non-casters - and I do think an entirely martial party, ie a party with no spellcasters, will have a very hard time doing well, or surviving, when they reach the medium-high levels.

For instance, if steak translates to "hitting things very hard" and the full menu translates into "restoration magic, condition removers, utility spells, divination, summoning etc" I think my analogy is pretty much spot on.

Though granted, vitamin supplements may be provided in the form of consumables and, when at a sufficiently high level, permanent magic items.

Conversely, if the non-caster relies on casters providing the spells he can't get himself then he's effectively snacking off their plate :smallbiggrin:

eggynack

2014-02-03, 11:34 AM

This is hyperbole. You're not going to die from playing a low tier class; lack of abilities and lack of vitamins don't equate.

A better analogy is eating nothing but steak while taking vitamin supplements, versus the caster's full menu. At worst there you will be bored with steak, but you won't keel over.
Well, the character might die, at the very least, and that's reasonably likely if you're hanging out with a lot of folks with a full menu. Lacking options is bad for your health, in other words. Maybe your DM will hand you vitamin supplements in the form of magic items or something, but not necessarily, and it won't always be enough, and maybe the guy with the full menu will give you some food off his plate in the form of buffing, but that is again not necessarily going to happen, nor is it necessarily going to be enough.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 11:39 AM

Well, the character might die, at the very least, and that's reasonably likely if you're hanging out with a lot of folks with a full menu.

Actually it's a lot less likely. Remember Treantmonk's guide - the Wizard is called "God" because he alters reality to prevent the lower-tier classes from meeting an untimely end. The otherwise brutal melee bruisers with dozens of attacks dripping with poison and crushing tentacles end up blind, stunned, single-file and standing on their heads.

Again, the big danger is boredom (for those players who don't like depending on buffs and debuffs); but for those who don't care that the more savvy gamers are making things easier for them everyone still has fun.

eggynack

2014-02-03, 11:45 AM

Actually it's a lot less likely. Remember Treantmonk's guide - the Wizard is called "God" because he alters reality to prevent the lower-tier classes from meeting an untimely end. The otherwise brutal melee bruisers with dozens of attacks dripping with poison and crushing tentacles end up blind, stunned, single-file and standing on their heads.

Well, maybe. It really depends on whether the DM modulates their encounters for wizard challenging or for fighter challenging. The former case could easily kill the fighter as a bystander in the midst of caster-fury. In the latter case, the fighter would indeed survive longer, if only because the caster can just explode everything, once again, in a maelstrom of caster-fury. Such is the nature of parties with massive tier-gap, though it's not necessarily an unsolvable problem.

Gwendol

2014-02-03, 01:57 PM

All of this matters little in the end. The fighting man will shrug, and roll up a new one in minutes. It's only the player enjoyment that matters after all.

Killer Angel

2014-02-03, 02:01 PM

Thank you. I'm trying but I can't put it better than this.

You're welcome. :smallwink:

This is hyperbole. You're not going to die from playing a low tier class; lack of abilities and lack of vitamins don't equate.

well, lack of abilities and power, can certainly contribute to your characters death...

roko10

2014-02-03, 02:12 PM

Kudaku

2014-02-03, 02:15 PM

However, mundanes even suck atbeing a challange, since you only need an horridly built wizard(barr Conjuration, anybody?) to create a liability,

I seem to recall a quote about how casters beat martials at everything, including sucking.

Something about how fighters can just stab themselves while wizards can banish themselves directly to the 9th layer of Hell.

Gwendol

2014-02-03, 02:18 PM

So half of the posters say that it's because casters are "easy mode".

However, mundanes even suck atbeing a challange, since you only need an horridly built wizard(barr Conjuration, anybody?) to create a liability,

Err, I think most agree that the main reason people choose to play a non-caster is because they want, as in that is their wish and a source of enjoyment.

FullStop

2014-02-03, 02:26 PM

For my part, it's because the inherent limitations in being a mundane or a gish as opposed to a straight caster make working out builds more interesting. Building a caster is like filling in a blank sudoku grid.

jedipotter

2014-02-03, 02:30 PM

Possibly. I know people who can literally eat the same meal for days on end without getting tired of it.

There are people that have, for example, eaten the same thing for breakfast for decades.

I'll just point out the other problem with the ''so many options they are so awesome'' casters: They can do too much. And not everyone can handle that much. So when some demons attack the player gets overwhelmed by the options. Of course, it works best in games with time limits on actions. Where a player has a set amount of time to take their turn or loose it. Even better if you count ''no time'' things in the game against the real time limit...like knowledge checks. Player: "I see demons, roll knowledge, DM tell me all about demons''. DM tells player about demons for 30 seconds and then says ''Sorry your time is up, you stand there for the round, next player go."

Though common sense rulings, not doing the rule worship, and other such things really make casters not so awesome. So if you play in a game like that, mundanes are fun.

Aegis013

2014-02-03, 02:38 PM

Though common sense rulings, not doing the rule worship, and other such things really make casters not so awesome. So if you play in a game like that, mundanes are fun.

Mundanes are fun regardless, if that's what the player wants to do. Even in a high op game, there's something satisfying about landing a twisted charge on an opponent for over 1,000 damage and making them pop like a balloon.

If nothing else, mundanes can achieve big numbers. A lot of players like big numbers.

eggynack

2014-02-03, 02:42 PM

Though common sense rulings, not doing the rule worship, and other such things really make casters not so awesome. So if you play in a game like that, mundanes are fun.
I don't really know what you mean by "common sense rulings". Is that like outright house rules? Cause a lot of the best stuff that casters do is incredibly within the rules, to the point where there is no interpretation required.

Oko and Qailee

2014-02-03, 02:42 PM

I seem to recall a quote about how casters beat martials at everything, including sucking.

Something about how fighters can just stab themselves while wizards can banish themselves directly to the 9th layer of Hell.

It's in Flickerdarts Sig and it's a quote from JaronK.

jedipotter

2014-02-03, 03:27 PM

I don't really know what you mean by "common sense rulings". Is that like outright house rules? Cause a lot of the best stuff that casters do is incredibly within the rules, to the point where there is no interpretation required.

It depends on your interpretation, of course.

Well, common sense would tell me the Solars would make a defense against Gate abuse and/or come after any mortal that used it on one of them. But the player of a caster would say ''the rules don't say that happens, so it does not happen.''

Though there are lots of wrong interpretations out there....like the idea that a creature can voluntarily drop it's immunities.

eggynack

2014-02-03, 03:33 PM

It depends on your interpretation, of course.

Well, common sense would tell me the Solars would make a defense against Gate abuse and/or come after any mortal that used it on one of them. But the player of a caster would say ''the rules don't say that happens, so it does not happen.''

Though there are lots of wrong interpretations out there....like the idea that a creature can voluntarily drop it's immunities.
I've seen the argument there, and I tend to disagree with it, but that's irrelevant. Gating solars can hang out in the corner while the wizard, perfectly within RAW, can alter self and polymorph into a ton of different things, shoot a solid fog that ends an encounter, hit golems within AMF's with a ball of fire, and do a million other things that break the game utterly. Druids are even better at this kinda thing, because most of their great stuff reads like PO, with spells like entangle, control winds, and venomfire, all doing exactly what they say. You can come up with some sort of argument for some things, maybe even some things I've listed, but there's always going to be a core of utterly ridiculous things that you have absolutely no counter-argument for, and that will be more than enough to wreck things.

Kudaku

2014-02-03, 03:35 PM

It's in Flickerdarts Sig and it's a quote from JaronK.

Thanks :smallsmile:

Psyren

2014-02-03, 03:35 PM

I don't really know what you mean by "common sense rulings". Is that like outright house rules? Cause a lot of the best stuff that casters do is incredibly within the rules, to the point where there is no interpretation required.

I find that the term "house rules" is often bandied about here with disdain, as though tweaking such a complex and fragile system to not be so fragile is the worst kind of sinful/shameful act a DM can commit. And yet I would wager the majority of DMs use at least a few, while the ones that claim not to instead have some form of gentleman's agreement in place instead. Even Tippy uses at least the latter.

So yeah, I'm proud to say that our games have houserules, and we think nothing of it. Both the DMG and CRB actively encourage it, after all (the latter, a bit more explicitly.)

eggynack

2014-02-03, 03:40 PM

Derjuin

2014-02-03, 03:48 PM

So half of the posters say that it's because casters are "easy mode".

However, mundanes even suck at being a challange, since you only need an horridly built wizard (ban Conjuration, anybody?) to create a liability,

A horribly built wizard is still something that's difficult to do on accident. And no, banning conjuration does not make a wizard into a liability. They still have access to divination (and the spontaneous divination ACF), enchantment, illusion, necromancy and transmutation. There are plenty of spells in every other school to still allow the wizard to reign nigh-supreme near the top of the food chain (obviously not THE top, since THE top is occupied by a conjurer :smallwink:).

Have you actually played a high level (12+) wizard? For some people, the bookkeeping is too much - having to rewrite your prepped spell list every D&D morning can become a huge hassle, especially when you're picking spells that are spread across four books because half of them weren't printed in Spell Compendium. For others, most notably those with mastery of the system, the ability to end every encounter with one or two spells can be a drag. Defeating everything your DM throws at you in one round may be fun for you, but look at the other players (including the DM!). If they never get a chance to do anything but narrate how their characters shuffle about uncomfortably while you get your thing on, then they're probably not having fun. D&D is not about just you - it is about everyone at the table (including the DM!) - and every table is different. Some people want to play Lancelot, not Merlin, etc.

Esprit15

2014-02-03, 03:51 PM

Kind of seconding everyone, their mother and the kitchen sink on the "Because I'm not in it to win, I'm in it for the fun/RP." Even as someone drawn to the magic class of every game he plays (Psychic, Warmage, Mage, etc.), I don't really like the amount of prep that the DnD prepared casting classes require. I'll play a sorcerer and still be effective by being a good generalist (or maybe thematic if being a sorcerer is a plot point). I'll play a Warmage and be great at throwing around damage right away with no forethought because that's the character. I remember playing a Mage during several runs in DA. Most effective one was a brutal debuffing, healing machine. However, I still needed the tanks to do damage while I ran away if things got ugly. It was fun, but I wasn't the only character on my team. Sometimes I want to play the guy who the Wizard is buffing instead.

Plus, as one of my friends put it: "I play a Crusader because at the lower levels, your prepared caster runs out of spells rather quickly, while I can keep smacking and recovering all day long." Especially to newer players, looking at a Wizard or a Sorcerer and seeing that they get, what, 4-6 spells a day at level 1, plus a small d4 hit dice (not an argument against a cleric, obviously), it's not encouraging to play at low levels, which some people forget is still played.

Zetapup

2014-02-03, 04:25 PM

Part of why I choose mundanes as opposed to casters is, as others have said, because I personally find it to be more fun/flavorful to fight creatures with a hunk of metal than slinging spells. Sure, a wizard could mimic a fighter very closely and exceed one in fighting ability with the right buffs, but that just doesn't have the feel/flavor I'm going for.

The other reason I choose mundanes is that they can do their thing at will. Swinging a sword can be done every round for a very long time. You might lose some hp, but that's also pretty renewable (fast healing, etc). Whenever I've played a wizard/other caster in a campaign, they've run out of spells very quickly, and my dms don't usually let us do "well, it's been 5 minutes and all your spells are gone, time to rest for 8 hours". (This is why I really want to play a warlock at some point- at will abilities and a decent amount of options? heck yeah).

Different strokes for different people, I guess.

Bit Fiend

2014-02-03, 04:44 PM

So half of the posters say that it's because casters are "easy mode".

However, mundanes even suck atbeing a challange, since you only need an horridly built wizard(barr Conjuration, anybody?) to create a liability,

No offense but is my impression that you are solely on this thread (and by extension the reason you created it) to throw in some exeggarated view of stereotypical munchkins, spike it with one or two stock phrases like Stormwind Fallacy and just watch how many people take the bait in any way inaccurate...? :smallconfused:

chaos_redefined

2014-02-03, 04:56 PM

A horribly built wizard is still something that's difficult to do on accident. And no, banning conjuration does not make a wizard into a liability. They still have access to divination (and the spontaneous divination ACF), enchantment, illusion, necromancy and transmutation. There are plenty of spells in every other school to still allow the wizard to reign nigh-supreme near the top of the food chain (obviously not THE top, since THE top is occupied by a conjurer :smallwink:).

Have you actually played a high level (12+) wizard? For some people, the bookkeeping is too much - having to rewrite your prepped spell list every D&D morning can become a huge hassle, especially when you're picking spells that are spread across four books because half of them weren't printed in Spell Compendium. For others, most notably those with mastery of the system, the ability to end every encounter with one or two spells can be a drag. Defeating everything your DM throws at you in one round may be fun for you, but look at the other players (including the DM!). If they never get a chance to do anything but narrate how their characters shuffle about uncomfortably while you get your thing on, then they're probably not having fun. D&D is not about just you - it is about everyone at the table (including the DM!) - and every table is different. Some people want to play Lancelot, not Merlin, etc.

While I haven't played a high level wizard, I have played a high level druid. And there are two points here I strongly disagree on.

1) At least in the case of druids, I found that if I was changing my spell list, I was only making minor changes. This may be more because the druid can spontaneously summon, so I may be willing to accept that wizards need to change out more.

2) Yeah, encounter-ending spells. I'll agree to this. Although if the DM throws things which can dispel or the like, this isn't as much of a point.

3) I get wanting to play a warrior, not a wizard. The thing I don't get is that there are ways to play a warrior where you have options. Playing a fighter/barbarian/whatever in combat means "I full attack. Then, I full attack. Oh, he moved away? I charge/move and attack." In comparison, gishes and ToB have options. Don't want a magical fighter, go look up ToB and play a warblade.

Eldest

2014-02-03, 05:08 PM

Replicate this moment as a Wizard and I might consider playing one:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/250/1/4/link_vs_ganondorf_by_christel2-d495mxb.jpg

Well, judging by how badly they're holding those swords, they probably are poor BaB. So both might be wizards?

Kelb_Panthera

2014-02-03, 05:09 PM

Looks like my answer is a bit unusual, but here goes: because I like optimization. As a wizard, winning at D&D is way too easy. You win when you pick wizard as your class and get >16 intelligence. Most casters are similarly boring. As a mundane character, however, you have to carefully pick your abilities and actually put effort into your build. That's more interesting.

I kinda take issue with this. A lot of people claim that playing as a caster is playing on "easy mode" but that's a matter of poor DM'ing.

Running a game to challenge casters is certainly a more complex prospect than doing the same for non-casters but it's eminently doable. Spells and spellcasters have limits and failing to account for these is not the fault of the person who built the caster.

TheMonocleRogue

2014-02-03, 05:17 PM

Well, have you ever fought against someone that abuses attacks of opportunity? (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Inhuman_AoO-er_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29)

TuggyNE

2014-02-04, 12:22 AM

I find that the term "house rules" is often bandied about here with disdain, as though tweaking such a complex and fragile system to not be so fragile is the worst kind of sinful/shameful act a DM can commit. And yet I would wager the majority of DMs use at least a few, while the ones that claim not to instead have some form of gentleman's agreement in place instead. Even Tippy uses at least the latter.

There are at least two different forms of houserules. One is the basic "RAW is literally not functioning here and absolutely must be fixed to make the game run", and another is "RAW works OK but we don't like its implications". (A third might be "RAW is perfectly fine but lacks some implications and complications we want to introduce".) The first of these is, of course, present in all practical games. The second is reasonably common, but can go wrong rather more easily, either because the implications of the RAW way are actually more sensible than the alternative dreamed up, or because the houserule does not function as intended. The third has the further problem of being unnecessary and often deleterious, like the addition of critical fumble rules.

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 01:28 AM

Well, judging by how badly they're holding those swords, they probably are poor BaB. So both might be wizards?

Touché, friend.

But while I admit that the bend of one's foil at the contact of another's shirt is a glorious moment, it rarely is found as EPIC as a confrontation of poorly-sword-holding fictional knights at the top of a cliff with lens flare and catchy aura effects, so I was forced to pick imagery based around this latter case.

Coidzor

2014-02-04, 02:17 AM

But while I admit that the bend of one's foil at the contact of another's shirt is a glorious moment, it rarely is found as EPIC as a confrontation of poorly-sword-holding fictional knights at the top of a cliff with lens flare and catchy aura effects, so I was forced to pick imagery based around this latter case.

You just had to bring up fencing. Now I'm stuck imagining what happens when those things have gone through too much stress and snap instead of bending.

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 02:35 AM

You just had to bring up fencing. Now I'm stuck imagining what happens when those things have gone through too much stress and snap instead of bending.

Well I'm a fencer, and it's one of my passions so yes, I do have to bring it up.

And it's actually quite hard for a foil to break (or an épée or a sabre for that matter) if you are using it correctly (and If you're not using it correctly then I don't know what you're doing up there, get down from the stage and get it together). I've seen two foils snap in a decade of fencing, both were during practice, the first was a kid who was unexperienced and was oblivious that if the blade is bending down then you're doing it wrong, and kept doing it until the obvious happened.
The second perpetration of the hideous act was an accident, and it happened to me, I was practicing lunges against a rubberlike wall with new shoes (which were unhealthily slippery) when I twisted my ankle and went way too forward with the blade unaimed and again, the foil bent downwards.

So yeah, it doesn't happen often, and it's only when the blade bends downwards instead of up (look up a video, the arc is always up).

Pan151

2014-02-04, 02:45 AM

3) I get wanting to play a warrior, not a wizard. The thing I don't get is that there are ways to play a warrior where you have options. Playing a fighter/barbarian/whatever in combat means "I full attack. Then, I full attack. Oh, he moved away? I charge/move and attack." In comparison, gishes and ToB have options. Don't want a magical fighter, go look up ToB and play a warblade.

Which is exactly why you don't play a straight up fighter. Instead, you use fighter in combination with other base classes to get into martial PrCs which have some actual special abilities, and in combination with a race that has its own special abilities, to create a character that has a lot of options while still being exclusively or almost exclusively mundane.

A human straight up fighter is obviously boring. A half-red dragon troll fighter/frenzied berserker not so much...

Sith_Happens

2014-02-04, 03:27 AM

So why would somebody play an fighter then, if it sucks beyond belief?*

*I chose Fighter because while CW Samurai sucks more, nobody plays CW Samurai.

I prefer Warblade, so this part is irrelevant.

As for non-casters in general, without reading the rest of the thread (because I've never seen one of these go past page two without devolving into tangentially-related arguments), the answer is: 'Cuz I feel like it.

Isamu Dyson

2014-02-04, 03:34 AM

kailkay

2014-02-04, 03:48 AM

So, in response to my earlier comment (vis a vis heroic Roy vs. sociopathic Varsuvius), there were a lot of "That's not exactly dependent upon class," comments. Which is completely fair and I concede the point, in that I was being facetious.

The fact of the matter is, unless you are munchkin powergaming kind of person, the whole question is moot; warrior classes are inferior in exactly no way, with regards to roleplaying. Mechanically, if you equip them appropriately and spend as much time min/maxing, multiclass-building and running algorithms, you will inevitably come up with a fighter (Yes, a 3.5 fighter!) as effective as a wizard in combat and usefulness.

Personally, in 3.5 I almost exclusively play warrior types. I find the squishy caster guys to be boring and overly complicated. Planning ahead? Blah. Spending literally a half hour deciding which spells to prepare for the day? Boring. At low levels, you run out of magic missiles and spend the rest of every encounter plinking crossbow bolts ineffectively at people (or, if you happen to be an elf for some reason, lobbing arrows ineffectively at people with greater rapidity).

Mechanically, at lower levels, casters are the ones the fighters chuckle about and shake their heads, while they all sit around the campfire sharpening their swords and axes. Their high vulnerability does not balance well with their general lacking in combat effectiveness (unless you're the kind of party that rests for 16 or 20 hours per day of adventuring), and as far as skills are concerned, they might get a bunch of bonus ones for high intelligence or something (I'm looking at you, wizards), but they still aren't going to contribute as much as a rogue will.

On this note, do we count bards as casters, or as roguely skill-spammy types?

I mean, if you want to play high-level D&D, then yeah, wizards and clerics and druids start to shine. But you have a long slogging ahead of you before you get there, unless you're just going to pop in as a level 13 character, in which case... well, where's the fun and sense of accomplishment, then?

I saw a graph once upon a time, long long ago, where they graphed 'usefulness' for various types of characters. The fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger and so on and so forth increased in effectiveness fairly proportionally to their rate of level gain. The caster one was more of a parabola, increasing exponentially, eventually overtaking the thug-types by around the mid-high level mark. And then they start to blow them out of the water.

And don't even start saying 'colour spray' and 'fireball' at me. You can use those three times at most when you first get them. A fighter has infinite sword-swings per day.

Elderand

2014-02-04, 03:51 AM

AuraTwilight

2014-02-04, 03:51 AM

There seems to be a weird subtle dichotomy growing in this thread: "Mundane classes are fun/magical classes are boring.".

I suppose it is impossible to play a boring Fighter or fun Cleric...right :smallwink:?

Uh, no. The OP asked why people would ever play mundanes, and the replies are the responses of people who prefer mundanes over casters. They're not saying casters are objectively boring or vice-versa; you're engaging in the same sort of fallacies as the OP himself.

roko10

2014-02-04, 04:02 AM

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 04:03 AM

There seems to be a weird subtle dichotomy growing in this thread: "Mundane classes are fun/magical classes are boring.".

I suppose it is impossible to play a boring Fighter or fun Cleric...right :smallwink:?

Thread does seem to slightly point that way at certain posts, but that's clearly not what's being discussed (heh, like there's a discussion anymore). And yeah, it's quite further from the truth.

Now I keep myself mostly to borderline casters when I want to cast (Warlock and Anima Mage focused on binder) but I dive completely when mundane. But despite no longer playing T1, for years straight Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16753963&postcount=8) proved the most fun experience a roleplayer could have. And I treasure those moments dearly.

It's all about having a good character concept, and then when you're set, to find a way to present it in 3.5's strange, quirky, but very fun class system.
To me at least.

For quite some time I played with a friend whose characters were so dull and equal it became unbearable after a while: All of them tanks, no roleplay whatsoever, no backstories, no different personalities between them... (I'm saddened to say they weren't even optimized correctly).
*shudder*

SiuiS

2014-02-04, 04:07 AM

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system, magic has more options, and for me more options=more fun.

I mean, why should I play a guy that hits real hard with a sword while I can be a wizard who summons elementals left and right, dominates the enemy, and so on?

No, actually?
The tier system is not prescriptive. It does not magically give you more options when you use it. Wizard has those options even when you don't use the tier system or even know it exists. The tier system describes.

The question "if casters have more options why do you use mundanes" is a faulty question. There is no "if". Casters definitely have more options. What you're missing is that this does not restrict mundane options and it is only important if those casting options matter in a way mundane options don't. It's very clear, actually.

People play mundanes because the mundanes exceed the minimum levels of possible achievement in a game.

Gwendol

2014-02-04, 04:09 AM

And don't even start saying 'colour spray' and 'fireball' at me. You can use those three times at most when you first get them. A fighter has infinite sword-swings per day.

"Colour spray". There. Fireballs have a bad rep around here so are not typically bandied about the same way colour spray does.

A level 1 wizard can cast three encounter ending spells per day if he wants to. How many enemies can the fighter face before running out of HP?
A druid has an animal companion that at level 1 is likely more effective than the fighter. And spells, and his own actions.
The cleric can buff, heal, fight, and has the power to be anything really.

I play a lot of non-casters, and in my experience they are very far from having infinite sword swings per day.

Gwendol

2014-02-04, 04:15 AM

Actually, I really wanted to play a monk...

....until everybody says it sucked.

I don't dislike mundanes or lower tier characters: Pathfinder Gunslinger is my favorite class, and it sits around low tier4-high tier 5.

However, because of "linear warriors, quadrantic wizards", I'd feel hard-pressed to play a mundane at higher levels, because eventually, they will become dead weight.

If you really want to play a monk, just play one. Why do you rely on what others tell you? They have options enough to make for viable play, and it's not like you are married to the class, branch out and diversify eventually to cover the gaps or fulfilling your design goals or whatever.

I have to ask: have you played a non-caster at higher level?

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 04:23 AM

Actually, I really wanted to play a monk...

....until everybody says it sucked.

Alright, in the threads there tends to be an assumption that you're going for High-Op, this has a very interesting effect in the game, but whatever.

First step is knowing your group's optimization level. If it's near WotC then you can play straight rogue or monk and there will change little in regards to how hard it will be to keep up. If it's near Tippy then well... better get to work. Most commonly, though, it will be in between those. So once you're clear on how much power your party needs, you can adjust your optimization to fit that need while still keeping your character concept.

Want to play a Monk? BY ALL MEANS DO SO! You have this amazing resource that's calling the playground for help and tips and even for building your characters and by heaven and hell we will!

Now, if you're still having trouble keeping up and in your table there's too much walking in the shadows of others then you should talk to your DM and even your entire group to fix that.

(I DM a table with an optimized rogue, a super optimized fighter and a carelessly built druid and it runs like clockwork)

kailkay

2014-02-04, 04:29 AM

You really don't understand the metagame.
If you optimise fighter and wizard equaly, wizard win and the whole fighter can swing all day is just blatantly false. Fighter have HP as a ressource and pretty much everyone and their mother will be better than a fighter at avoiding HP loss.

If you optimize them equally, the wizard will indeed be better, at the end of the day. The fact is, all classes have HP as a resource; fighters just have more of it (well, all the warrior types do. I'll call them all fighters for now just to be a bother). If you pick the right feats, armor, enchantments and magical items as a fighter, you're going to avoid losing that HP nicely enough.

"Colour spray". There. Fireballs have a bad rep around here so are not typically bandied about the same way colour spray does.

A level 1 wizard can cast three encounter ending spells per day if he wants to. How many enemies can the fighter face before running out of HP?
A druid has an animal companion that at level 1 is likely more effective than the fighter. And spells, and his own actions.
The cleric can buff, heal, fight, and has the power to be anything really.

I play a lot of non-casters, and in my experience they are very far from having infinite sword swings per day.

At level 1, the wizard needs to beat some will and/or reflex saves in order to end encounters. And if all the foes in the encounter are not all nicely lined up or bunched together, said wizard is going to still have to get the infinite-swords-per-day fighter to deal with any potential tactically inconvenient foes before the wizard is turned into a robe-wearing practice dummy.

At level 1, it's very easy to make a fighter easy to hit. How many enemies can the wizard face before running out of HP, with his epic AC 14? I suppose he could always expeditiously retreat out of harms way, but that means he only gets two encounter-ending spells per day.

I have only ever seen druid animal companions used to set up flanking with rogues. :/ They have a bunch more HP, but are fairly lacking in the AC department, as I recall.

I concede, however, that playing a cleric is, punnily, the God-mode of D&D 3.0 and 3.5.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-04, 04:36 AM

It's all about having a good character concept, and then when you're set, to find a way to present it in 3.5's strange, quirky, but very fun class system.
To me at least.

I agree that implementing an interesting character concept is fun. However after I learned how to build and play casters I noticed most concepts I have are much easier to implement by basing them on some form of casting (arcane, divine, psionic, invocations, ...).

TuggyNE

2014-02-04, 04:38 AM

Partially ninja'd while I set my thoughts in order, but that's how we roll.

The fact of the matter is, unless you are munchkin powergaming kind of person, the whole question is moot; warrior classes are inferior in exactly no way, with regards to roleplaying.

Hrm. If mechanics are irrelevant to all but those grubby munchkins, what does that make me or you, or anyone else who cares about having characters whose boasts can be backed up with real results, mechanically? Tempest Stormwind would be sad.

Mechanically, if you equip them appropriately and spend as much time min/maxing, multiclass-building and running algorithms, you will inevitably come up with a fighter (Yes, a 3.5 fighter!) as effective as a wizard in combat and usefulness.

Really now. What, pray tell, can give a fighter the ability to make their own lasting allies (planar binding, animate dead, dominate person), shape new terrain (wall of stone, move earth, transmute rock to lava), force every foe on the field to slow to a crawl or even halt entirely (solid fog, symbol of stunning, black tentacles), transport the party hundreds of miles or across planes in the blink of an eye (plane shift, teleport), or disappear from all manner of detection (mind blank + superior invisibility, sequester)? For a wizard, those are all a mere spell away, or sometimes two, which is not exactly the height of optimization. No feats, no skill points, no class levels or race need be dedicated to those acts: simply choose those spells on level up or find or seek out an appropriate spellbook, then prepare them whenever needed, with as little as fifteen minutes' notice.

Now, actual optimization can add to that, allowing all-day-every-day 9d6 acid damage with a ranged touch attack (no save or SR), the ability to teleport instantly from harm's way, AC in the 70s or 80s, immunity to well-nigh anything (up to and including "death by HP damage from any source"), and a whole lot more.

Mechanically, at lower levels, casters are the ones the fighters chuckle about and shake their heads, while they all sit around the campfire sharpening their swords and axes.
[…]
I mean, if you want to play high-level D&D, then yeah, wizards and clerics and druids start to shine. But you have a long slogging ahead of you before you get there, unless you're just going to pop in as a level 13 character, in which case... well, where's the fun and sense of accomplishment, then?

I saw a graph once upon a time, long long ago, where they graphed 'usefulness' for various types of characters. The fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger and so on and so forth increased in effectiveness fairly proportionally to their rate of level gain. The caster one was more of a parabola, increasing exponentially, eventually overtaking the thug-types by around the mid-high level mark. And then they start to blow them out of the water.

This may have been true in earlier editions. It is no longer true in 3.x by any means; the point at which the caster curve passes the mundane curve varies, but a druid can reasonably be argued to pass a fighter at level 1. Not level 15, not level 11, not level 7: level 1. (This involves liberal use of entangle and/or impeding stones as well as the realization that a riding dog companion can have equal or greater AC with barding, similar attack, similar damage, and greater HP — and that's just the class feature, never mind the druid themselves.)

A wizard, on the other hand, probably crosses somewhere between level 5 (when rope trick can be extended to allow the party nigh-invulnerable rest) and level 9 (teleport). Clerics maybe about the same. If, of course, you do not plan to play past level 5, or perhaps level 7, you might not notice this much. Good for you; the game works best if you only play about a third of it.

And don't even start saying 'colour spray' and 'fireball' at me. You can use those three times at most when you first get them. A fighter has infinite sword-swings per day.

That's a bad comparison. A fighter does not have infinite HP, and has no encounter-ending abilities at all. A wizard who uses color spray or sleep has a decent chance of flat-out shutting down all enemy action, period. (I will certainly not attempt to use fireball as an argument for wizardly superiority, and the fact that you consider that a strong point is in itself rather characteristic of the mindset of 2e optimization, which is no longer really relevant with all the changes 3.0 made. Changes such as Con to HP for everyone, weaker Fighter saves, bonus spells for high ability scores, DC changes, and so forth.)

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 04:41 AM

I agree that implementing an interesting character concept is fun. However after I learned how to build and play casters I noticed most concepts I have are much easier to implement by basing them on some form of casting (arcane, divine, psionic, invocations, ...).

Well it's completely fair that character concepts spring after reading the source books. Maybe "FIRST STEP" are not the right words, perhaps just "quasi-essential" and "important to have predecessing"?

ahenobarbi

2014-02-04, 04:42 AM

Gwendol

2014-02-04, 05:00 AM

[nitpick]
Human Conjuer with Abrupt Jaunt ACF, Precautious(?) Disciple (some 2nd level [Fire] spell) and Fiery Burst feats can AoE(5ft radius) for 2d6 fire damage range with 30ft each round, whole day and get out of hams way as immediate action 3+INT times a day. Without using spells or equipment.

I think it compares quite nicely to fighter-y types.

This is a build, but generally core-only wizards do fine as well at level 1 in 3.5. I play a Magic-User in a BECMI game, and that is a different story.

Gwendol

2014-02-04, 05:04 AM

At level 1, the wizard needs to beat some will and/or reflex saves in order to end encounters. And if all the foes in the encounter are not all nicely lined up or bunched together, said wizard is going to still have to get the infinite-swords-per-day fighter to deal with any potential tactically inconvenient foes before the wizard is turned into a robe-wearing practice dummy.

At level 1, it's very easy to make a fighter easy to hit. How many enemies can the wizard face before running out of HP, with his epic AC 14? I suppose he could always expeditiously retreat out of harms way, but that means he only gets two encounter-ending spells per day.

I have only ever seen druid animal companions used to set up flanking with rogues. :/ They have a bunch more HP, but are fairly lacking in the AC department, as I recall.

I concede, however, that playing a cleric is, punnily, the God-mode of D&D 3.0 and 3.5.

Of course situations may arise that will put the wizard at a disadvantage. And the same can be said for the fighter. Of course the AC is no fighter, but it's good enough, and you still have the druid who can cast shillelagh for example and smack quite well on his own.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-04, 05:51 AM

Well it's completely fair that character concepts spring after reading the source books. Maybe "FIRST STEP" are not the right words, perhaps just "quasi-essential" and "important to have predecessing"?

I think I don't understand what you meant.

Really all ideas (even brute-strength skull-crashing raging warrior) are easier to implement with using magic (variations).

This is a build, but generally core-only wizards do fine as well at level 1 in 3.5. I play a Magic-User in a BECMI game, and that is a different story.

Yes it's just a build. But here are many ways for a wizard to compete with mundanes at low levels (I think we agree on that but I'm checking).

Gwendol

2014-02-04, 06:10 AM

We do. I was trying to pre-empt the inevitable discussions on optimization levels and specific builds.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 07:03 AM

Togo

2014-02-04, 07:15 AM

We seem to be confusing a number of different concepts here.

The first is the idea that characters should always be desgined to be as mechanically efective as possible. This is a fallacy - for almost any purpose, including the long term survival of the character, it's more effective to aim your mechanical effectiveness at near the level of the rest of the party. It makes for better roleplaying, better survivability, longer lasting games, and a more saitsfying experience for the rest of the group. Creating the most powerful character you can is fun, granted, making the most of the 3.5 metagame that is character design, but it's almost always a sub-optimal strategy.

The second is the idea of 'equal optimisation'. If you think of this in terms of putting effort into moving a class above it's 'natural' place in the game then it's a very fuzzy and subjective concept. If you think of it in terms of making characters equally effective, then it's a very clear and distinct term. You balance characters within the game, and what works and what doesn't will depend in part on that game. It's entirely possible to play a monk on equal terms with wizards and clerics, so long as you optimise the former to match the effectiveness of the latter.

The third is the idea of variety. Having a character that can alter their abilities daily is varied. Claiming that a wizard always has teleport, solid fog, astral projection and their own demi-plane is not varied. As some posters mentioned, in practice casters may not vary their spells very much. There is more variety in a character class than in a particular character. If you enjoy optimising, it may be more fun to optimise a new class than to play a less optimal take on an existing one. I had a lot of fun with solid fog, so much that I'm reluctant to take it at all now. I'd rather try new things.

And yes, I have played a non-full caster at high level, and a great deal of fun it was too.

SiuiS

2014-02-04, 07:32 AM

Actually, I really wanted to play a monk...

....until everybody says it sucked.

We recently reviewed our notes for a past game and found that our monk was the star of the game. The heavily Optimised guys did well, and shaped events, but they were basically DMPCs at that point. The other party members were neat but just sort of tagged along.

The one who had heroic adventures? Who tackled improbably odds and came out on top through tenacity, ingenuity and pluck? The one who had the most bad-ass moments? The monk.

At level 1, the wizard needs to beat some will and/or reflex saves in order to end encounters. And if all the foes in the encounter are not all nicely lined up or bunched together, said wizard is going to still have to get the infinite-swords-per-day fighter to deal with any potential tactically inconvenient foes before the wizard is turned into a robe-wearing practice dummy.

At level 1, the wizard has an AC of 18-22, full mobility, a familiar for stage management, and can just run in circles until the enemies clump enough to blast.

Well it's completely fair that character concepts spring after reading the source books. Maybe "FIRST STEP" are not the right words, perhaps just "quasi-essential" and "important to have predecessing"?

I actually take new players aside, and ask them to think of a concept. I can build any concept for them, often with multiple paths and some minor re fluffing. This ensures I get functional characters who are still fun for them. This ensures that people will go "I want to be the outcast scion of a collapsed empire, whose familial sword rigs with the voice of my ancestors guiding me on to glory and wisdom" instead of "I want to be an elf ranger/samurai witha focus on my ancestral weapon".

Ivanhoe

2014-02-04, 08:11 AM

Dr. Azkur

2014-02-04, 08:17 AM

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 08:21 AM

I actually take new players aside, and ask them to think of a concept. I can build any concept for them, often with multiple paths and some minor re fluffing. This ensures I get functional characters who are still fun for them. This ensures that people will go "I want to be the outcast scion of a collapsed empire, whose familial sword rigs with the voice of my ancestors guiding me on to glory and wisdom" instead of "I want to be an elf ranger/samurai witha focus on my ancestral weapon".

And this, I think, beautifully encapsulates one of the biggest answers to the title question. To wit, why would somebody play a non-caster? Concept. And I happen to have great respect for any DM who says, "Put aside class names and mechanics. Tell me your concept, give me the fluff, and we'll find the crunch that fits around it, rather than the reverse."

A good character is like a chocolate truffle with a hazelnut-encrusted shell, in my mind - fluffy on the inside, crunchy on the outside.

Concept, concept, concept. Therein lies the path to enlightenment.

kpumphre

2014-02-04, 08:36 AM

Casters are my least favorite class to play. The closest I get to Magic is Warlock. I just did give wizard a try 5-9th level. I was bored until 9th when I just started teleporting all over.

I like the skills for rogue, and warlocks are my favorite. I've had fun with playing Monks, and Sword sages can kick some ass.

Basically some classes rub you the wrong way plus your are not really helpful playing a caster in a party full of casters. OK So we just beat the boss everyone is wiped out. Your spells are gone now what? What can you do when a few tour guards come in and see you over the dead body of the high wizard or king? Nothing

Non-Caster Kill them because you never run out of attacks, run away because you still have all your abilities.

I know they are considered Tier 1 but ugh I just felt so limited every day having to make sure I get this much sleep and if we get interrupted oh no spells are lost.

Rejusu

2014-02-04, 09:26 AM

For me I find lower tier characters more fun to generate. While a tier one caster may have lots of options in game creating them is often a fairly bland affair. Druid for example, fantastic to play but frankly the only thing better than straight Druid is Planar Shepard (if your DM hasn't banned it). There's a lot more scope for optimising when you're not already scraping the power ceiling.

That said I'm not a fan of playing something completely sub optimal (like pure Monk) as that can get boring real quick. But you don't have to be Batman to have fun, and isn't that the point? Fun?

P.S. I also agree with Red Fel and Siuis, concept then crunch. Play the concept not the character. Want to play a "Monk"? Well this unarmed Swordsage will work that.

Darrin

2014-02-04, 09:56 AM

I'm only going to mention my particular case:

Someone needs to do DPS. The rest of the players in my group aren't all that interested in optimization. They'd rather play "cool concept" characters and aren't all that concerned about combat. If they can't do DPS... well, might as well be me. So I have a tendency to wind up playing a barbarian/fighter/ranger amalgam of some sort.

Meatbag isn't the most glorious job, but there is honor and satisfaction in having an important job and doing it well.

And yes, I know a properly built top tier spellcaster can meatbag it along with the best melee bruisers, what with summon bigger fish and divine powah! and polymorph, but I don't always have patience for the bookkeeping. That, and as many have already pointed out, making an effective melee character is a lot more challenging than BatGod wizzies/CoDzillas.

Norin

2014-02-04, 10:19 AM

Snip...OK So we just beat the boss everyone is wiped out. Your spells are gone now what? What can you do when a few tour guards come in and see you over the dead body of the high wizard or king? Nothing

Non-Caster Kill them because you never run out of attacks, run away because you still have all your abilities.

Snip...

Aha! But this, my friend, is where a well balanced gish build comes into play, no?

Or even a skillmonkey based caster mix like a rogue/unseen seer/arcane trickster/spellthief/factotum sort of mix up, if you know what i mean?

Run out of magic tricks? Fall back on your mundane arse kicking. Problem solved!

eggynack

2014-02-04, 10:48 AM

LordBiscuit

2014-02-04, 10:59 AM

That sounds awesome (possibly better even than the abrupt jaunt fiery blast reserve feat wizard)!
Please explain.

Agility 18, Mage Armour and Sheild I would assume. At 5th level, he would have 22 AC for 5 minutes, and 18 AC for 5 hours. It's around this level that he would also have access to haste and fly, though retreat would probably be used until higher levels.

A fun fact is that both sheild and mage armour (I don't know about this) are both in full effect when transformed. So by level seven it's possible to transform into a melee monster for 7 rounds with trollshape with a AC of 26 and fast healing 5. Though I imagine having such high AC would be inefficent, so you could have less dex and still be reasonable.

Personally I enjoy playing certain types of melee characters. Largely due to the sheer concept and the idea of wanting to be that warrior, a mortal, against threats that I would cause a lesser man to buckle and still win. Though I tend on having to game extremely hard to make a mundane class that works and archery isn't that appealing.

Rejusu

2014-02-04, 11:15 AM

Basically some classes rub you the wrong way plus your are not really helpful playing a caster in a party full of casters. OK So we just beat the boss everyone is wiped out. Your spells are gone now what? What can you do when a few tour guards come in and see you over the dead body of the high wizard or king? Nothing

Non-Caster Kill them because you never run out of attacks, run away because you still have all your abilities.

I know they are considered Tier 1 but ugh I just felt so limited every day having to make sure I get this much sleep and if we get interrupted oh no spells are lost.

What you're saying is only really applicable to wizards/sorcerers and other similar "squishy" casters. Druids still have wildshape and their animal companions to fall back on when their spell slots are empty. Clerics have 3/4 BAB, heavy armour proficiency, and a lot of buffs with good durations. It's only really the wizard that finds himself at a loss for words if he runs dry.

Which shouldn't really be happening anyway except at very early levels unless you're going nova. As for making sure you get enough sleep, there's spells for that.

Besides the situation you described (finding your character unable to contribute to an encounter) is much more common for mundanes. Undead/construct/etc? Say bye bye to your sneak attack rogue! Incorporeal or flying? Melee says "Wha?". For a properly built caster there's almost no situation they can't handle provided they have spells left. And if they don't they just escape and come back tomorrow. But a barbarian isn't going to grow wings overnight.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 11:30 AM

Besides the situation you described (finding your character unable to contribute to an encounter) is much more common for mundanes. Undead/construct/etc? Say bye bye to your sneak attack rogue! Incorporeal or flying? Melee says "Wha?".

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 11:40 AM

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

1. If they know their weaknesses. A never-before-played-D&D player playing a Wizard, and one playing a Fighter, encounter an incorporeal flying undead. Happy coincidence, the Wizard has a spell for that. Sad fact, the Fighter does not. Knowing for next time won't help the Fighter now.

2. If they can find ways. That's assuming the DM makes MagicMart available to his players, or allows races or templates or what-not. If not, the melees have to hope that they can randomly find a Ghost Touch weapon, or a magic item with per-day uses of Flight, or something similar. Otherwise, the melees have to invest in casting or spell-like classes just to get the same benefit.

3. But never just as well. That's the key point. Casters get these advantages innately, as a function of their class. Casters get the ability to cast spells, and can learn the spells that they need for every encounter. Melees, generally, do not get these abilities innately; they are dependent on magic items, or having the party caster use buffs on them. That's not "just as well."

Your position is close to, if not exactly, the Oberoni Fallacy - it's not broken if it can be fixed. But the point is that if it has to be fixed - i.e. if the non-casters need some sort of outside assistance to perform at the same tasks the casters can do innately - it's already broken to begin with.

Rejusu

2014-02-04, 11:42 AM

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

The point is that casters can adapt on the fly and at a much earlier level than mundanes. Besides mundanes have to spend feats and WBL on adapting, both limited resources. Remember that casters get feats and WBL just like mundanes do, and they don't have to spend it all to make sure they're prepared for everything.

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 11:49 AM

1. If they know their weaknesses. A never-before-played-D&D player playing a Wizard, and one playing a Fighter, encounter an incorporeal flying undead. Happy coincidence, the Wizard has a spell for that. Sad fact, the Fighter does not. Knowing for next time won't help the Fighter now.

2. If they can find ways. That's assuming the DM makes MagicMart available to his players, or allows races or templates or what-not. If not, the melees have to hope that they can randomly find a Ghost Touch weapon, or a magic item with per-day uses of Flight, or something similar. Otherwise, the melees have to invest in casting or spell-like classes just to get the same benefit.

3. But never just as well. That's the key point. Casters get these advantages innately, as a function of their class. Casters get the ability to cast spells, and can learn the spells that they need for every encounter. Melees, generally, do not get these abilities innately; they are dependent on magic items, or having the party caster use buffs on them. That's not "just as well."

Your position is close to, if not exactly, the Oberoni Fallacy - it's not broken if it can be fixed. But the point is that if it has to be fixed - i.e. if the non-casters need some sort of outside assistance to perform at the same tasks the casters can do innately - it's already broken to begin with.

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

The point is that casters can adapt on the fly and at a much earlier level than mundanes. Besides mundanes have to spend feats and WBL on adapting, both limited resources. Remember that casters get feats and WBL just like mundanes do, and they don't have to spend it all to make sure they're prepared for everything.

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

Some prepared casters (mostly wizards) also have to spend WBL to have a good selection of spells. That is however a much smaller expense than that of non-casters indeed.

Which is why I thing WBL is a faulty guideline to follow. Instead, the DM should just handpick whatever items he things are necessary to keep everyone in the party relevant and throw them in the loot.

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 12:00 PM

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

This isn't a case of cookie-cutter spells. A flying, incorporeal undead is the trifecta - it can stay out of melee range, can't be hurt by nonmagical attacks, and isn't subject to crits.

A Wizard doesn't need cookie-cutter spells to hit it. Almost any offensive spell in the PHB will do the trick. Heck, Magic Missile does it, and it's arguably the most elementary spell there is. You don't require elaborate or obscure spells to handle most encounters - there's enough material in core to do the work for you.

And that's not even counting divine casters, who already know all of their spells. A Cleric doesn't need to buy scrolls; he just prays, and bam, he gets Miracle.

Your non-caster? Assuming he can get within range of our aforementioned flying, incorporeal undead (that is, assuming it isn't flying out of his reach), his crits will be useless, he'll suffer a miss chance, and if he doesn't have a magical weapon, he's straight-up out of luck.

You can build a frighteningly effective spellcaster, arcane or divine, based entirely on common, ordinary spells in the core books. A spontaneous caster isn't even reliant upon the availability of scrolls or wands to get what he wants. A non-caster is almost entirely reliant upon magic items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

Oh, right. It's the lazy DM's fault for not making non-casters useful. Hello, Oberoni Fallacy.

eggynack

2014-02-04, 12:00 PM

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.
Those two things aren't really the same. Spells are pretty cheap, and are thus pretty easy to find, and you can get a lot of them. Magic items that solve problems are expensive, by contrast, and are a bit more rare as a result. The rarity isn't the real issue though. The issue is the price, because if you're solving problems through magic items, then you can't reasonably be expected to have solutions to all, or even most problems.

Let's use flight as a reasonable example. A standard flight item, found on the ever-useful lists of necessary magic items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851) is the winged mask (MoF) and sells for 13,000 GP. You can technically purchase that at level 6, assuming standard WBL, but that's incredibly unrealistic. At level 10, as an arbitrary level, this item would consume a bit more than a fourth of your 49,000 GP. That's a lot. You can't solve every possible problem like this, not on the lists of necessary magic items, and not outside of them. Wealth by level is very much a limited resource, and is, if anything, more limited than what you can pull off with spells. I'm talking about a day by day basis too, because it only takes a day to completely change your list. One of the big struggles of the fighter is that fighters are fixed, while casters can adapt, and once you buy this winged mask, that mask is reasonably set in stone. It's a bad thing.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 12:06 PM

Oh, right. It's the lazy DM's fault for not making non-casters useful. Hello, Oberoni Fallacy.

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

eggynack

2014-02-04, 12:10 PM

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.
That doesn't really make the two sides of the equation balanced though. They can't, "overcome their weaknesses as well as a caster can," because the DM has to actively work against the fighter's weaknesses in order to get anything close to balance. That's pretty much the opposite of the game being balanced, especially when it doesn't even necessarily get you all the way there, because the DM presumably has to do this for all of the fighter's weaknesses and lack of strengths.

Rejusu

2014-02-04, 12:18 PM

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

Ignoring that regardless of DM intervention the Wizard still gets two spells per level with the only restriction being that it has to be something he can cast. Mundanes suffer far more from being denied access to magic mart. The wizard has Amazon prime and just gets most of his toys delivered. And that's just the wizard.

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

You're missing the point. The fact is that the wizard or your other average caster does not need the DM to cater to them. DMs are variable, rulebooks aren't. Just because a mundane can function effectively in a game does not mean there's no discrepancy.

There are situations that can and will arise that mundanes can't handle. Just because a particular DM won't throw them at you doesn't mean they don't exist.

albeaver89

2014-02-04, 12:31 PM

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

You asked why you would play a fighter, he answered 'role play'. He wants to role play a fighter. Has nothing to do with minmaxing.

Chester

2014-02-04, 12:52 PM

Several pages long, so forgive me if I missed what was said already:

Sometimes, it's satisfying to put a sword through a goblin. Period.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 12:53 PM

There are situations that can and will arise that mundanes can't handle. Just because a particular DM won't throw them at you doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just like there are (admittedly, rare) situations that casters can't handle, but mundanes can.

Anyway, DnD is not a game that exists in a vaccuum. There always exists a DM to tailor the game to his/her liking. Does the DM want their game to be played in relative balance between all party members (not necessarily just between casters and mundanes), or do they not? If they don't care, then no problem. Setting an adventure and leaving it up to the players to figure out the optimal way to tackle it or die trying is a perfectly valid way of doing things. If they do care, however, they have to be the ones making sure they keep the balance and make sure that every party member is useful in a meaningful way. It's not the rogue's fault that you constantly throw undead and costructs at them, but no locks or traps. It's not the fighter's fault that all the encounters you throw them could be easily tanked by the wizard's minions alone. Similarly, it's not the cleric's or the wizard's fault that you desided that Dispelling and Anti-Magic fields are exceedingly common.

Mundanes have options. Not as many and not as powerful as full casters - that much is the ruleset's fault. But they do have enough to be at least deserve a spot in a party - if not, then that is the DM not doing a good enough job at making his game enjoyable for all his players.

eggynack

2014-02-04, 12:56 PM

Just like there are (admittedly, rare) situations that casters can't handle, but mundanes can.

Can ya think of any for druids? Do take heed of the fact that there exist AMF piercing blasting spells for druids as well.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 12:58 PM

Can ya think of any for druids? Do take heed of the fact that there exist AMF piercing blasting spells for druids as well.

Magic spells that ignore null-magic zones? Such as?

And is there any that would be better than simply setting a Barbarian loose?

eggynack

2014-02-04, 01:02 PM

Magic spells that ignore null-magic zones? Such as?
Splinterbolt, blast of sand, and sudden stalagmite are three that can hit a golem within an AMF, and that's just blasting.

zephyrkinetic

2014-02-04, 01:02 PM

Because glass cannons are lamesauce. I'd much prefer to wade into melee combat and start swinging at things.

But then, I don't play with people who have to exploit loopholes and powergame to enjoy themselves; we're there for the roleplay. And it doesn't get more exciting than a berzerker with a pair of Dwarven waraxes, or a big dumb Orc hitting people with a tree trunk. :smallbiggrin:

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 01:02 PM

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

As Rejusu said, the caster's ability to hit an incorporeal undead is independent of the DM's aptitudes. I refuse to accept the argument that, if the DM brings in a monster that a single PC is not equipped to handle or otherwise contribute to the combat, the DM is somehow being lazy.

If that were the case, a DM could never throw undead or constructs at a party with a Rogue, or anything that flies (including dragons) at a party with a Fighter, or anything incorporeal at a party with basically anyone who isn't a caster, for fear that they'd be left out and what kind of horrible DM would do that.

Yet even that is beside the point. The point is that the caster can handle any of these threats without requiring additional assistance; the non-caster can't. The caster is therefore, by its very nature, better-equipped to handle problems. When you say that the non-caster is equally equipped if the DM intervenes, and if the DM fails to intervene then the DM is being problematic, you are indulging in the Oberoni Fallacy writ large. You're arguing that, if the DM can fix it, it isn't broken; and if the DM fails to fix it, the DM is at fault - it's still not broken despite not being fixed.

Nobody is saying that non-casters lack a spot in the party. They have one. But to pretend that their efforts cannot be reproduced effectively by a caster is to ignore facts. And to blame the DM when non-casters are rendered ineffectual or redundant by casters is to ignore the fact that this is how the game was designed, for good or ill.

And even this is beside the point of the original question, which was "Why play a non-caster?" The answer to which, it appears, includes (but is not limited to): (1) challenge, (2) flavor, (3) lack of bookkeeping, (4) fun.

eggynack

2014-02-04, 01:09 PM

And is there any that would be better than simply setting a Barbarian loose?
Not necessarily, but possibly when considering the fact that there is also an animal companion there. Either way, the question wasn't, "Can the druid handle this better?" The question was, "Can the druid handle this?" The answer is usually going to be a very big yes.

Pan151

2014-02-04, 01:13 PM

I refuse to accept the argument that, if the DM brings in a monster that a single PC is not equipped to handle or otherwise contribute to the combat, the DM is somehow being lazy.

Who exactly said that that one monster that one PC can't handle constitutes a lazy DM?

It's perfectly ok to, every once in a while, have one of the PCs be carried by the rest of the party. To have every single encounter tailor-made for all of the party to be equally useful at would get really bland really fast.

If however, one or more characters are routinely getting carried by the rest of the party without much of a difference in optimisation (say the mundanes are getting carried by the casters) then the DM should stop crying about linear warriors-quadratic wizards and do something to actually fix it.

OldTrees1

2014-02-04, 01:21 PM

Why should somebody play a non-caster?
Because they want to.

Why might they want to?
1) They might dislike limited abilities like Vancian casting.
1a: There are still some casters that do not have limited abilities but those are generally on par with non-casters. People that personally dislike limited abilities would probably like both Warlock and Fighter.
1b: Some casters convert their spells into persistent buffs. However without high optimization, you get less out of a persistent buffs than you would get with relevant class features (assuming you ignore the disliked non persistent spells/day).

2) They might dislike bookkeeping/complexity.
2a: You might say that classes like Sorcerer have little bookkeeping or that caster builds tend to have less multiclassing than non-casters. However I would remind you that what is/is not perceived as bookkeeping depends on the person.

3) Sometimes a character concept includes magical inability as part of the core of the character concept. ("Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth to his father despite his inability to harness magic")
3a: This is not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy would be claiming that this character concept cannot be optimized because it is born from roleplaying.

...

You get the jist:
There are plenty of valid reasons for someone to prefer what they prefer and that preference might be the preference of non-casters over casters.

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 01:34 PM

Who exactly said that that one monster that one PC can't handle constitutes a lazy DM?

It's perfectly ok to, every once in a while, have one of the PCs be carried by the rest of the party. To have every single encounter tailor-made for all of the party to be equally useful at would get really bland really fast.

Agreed.

If however, one or more characters are routinely getting carried by the rest of the party without much of a difference in optimisation (say the mundanes are getting carried by the casters) then the DM should stop crying about linear warriors-quadratic wizards and do something to actually fix it.

But here's the problem. A poorly-optimized-yet-reasonably-effective caster can still carry a highly-optimized non-caster. Assuming equal optimization, the caster will definitely be able to carry the party.

Let me relate a personal anecdote. I was once in a Dragonlance campaign. The DM was an experienced DM and player, and the players ranged between "extremely new" and "one or two campaigns' experience." None of us were remotely optimizers. One member of our party was a Black Robe Wizard. This character, as soon as she researched Teleport Without Error, became our primary source of transportation.

It didn't matter that there were travel caravans; we waited for her spells to refresh. It didn't matter that we had a gnomish engineer in our party who could develop better transportation; we waited for the wizard. It didn't matter that the DM gave us a gnomish submarine, including several Permanenced Unseen Servants to take 10 on the operations, to get us around; when our wizard was off buying reagents or slaughtering the villagers, we sat in a grotto and waited for her. This was not the DM's fault. The mechanics required us to make regular rolls to operate the ship, and provided that travel took time, meaning days or even weeks. Or we could simply wait a day for the wizard to prepare her spells, and be wherever we wanted to be.

This same wizard also had a variety of battlefield control spells that she used to completely dominate combat or lock down enemies. I repeat that this was not an optimized character; this was a player who saw spells in the book that looked useful, and took them, end of story. If our non-casters had been optimized, she still would have been more useful, and more valuable in combat. We fought a skeletal dragon once - melee was minimally effective against it. Guess who was the MVP of that fight?

A moderately- or even poorly-optimized caster can run circles around similarly- or better-optimized non-casters, and that's not the DM's fault. It's not the DM's responsibility to nerf the casters, it's not his responsibility to beef the non-casters, it's his responsibility to see to it that people at the table are able to have fun.

Casters will contribute more in most encounters. It is unfortunate, but true. If characters are "routinely getting carried," the responsibility does not fall to the DM to take them by the hand. The responsibility falls to the players - assuming the discrepancy in utility bothers them - to find a way to contribute.

Togo

2014-02-04, 01:38 PM

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

The point that more often gets ignored is that there are no mundanes in D&D. Most classes get spellcasting, and they all get magical equipment. The fact that magical equipment duplicates a vast range of spell effects does rather undercut the idea that non-full spellcasters can't fly, tactical teleport, or what have you. Items expand everyone's capabilties into full caster territory. That full casters get them too isn't ignored so much as it is irrelevent to point being made.

This isn't a case of cookie-cutter spells. A flying, incorporeal undead is the trifecta - it can stay out of melee range, can't be hurt by nonmagical attacks, and isn't subject to crits.
...
Your non-caster? Assuming he can get within range of our aforementioned flying, incorporeal undead (that is, assuming it isn't flying out of his reach), his crits will be useless, he'll suffer a miss chance, and if he doesn't have a magical weapon, he's straight-up out of luck.

So our hypothetical non-caster has no ranged weapon and no magic weapon? Can you perhaps see the inconsistency in your reasoning there?

That doesn't really make the two sides of the equation balanced though. They can't, "overcome their weaknesses as well as a caster can," because the DM has to actively work against the fighter's weaknesses in order to get anything close to balance.

Only in the same way that the DM has to work against the spellcaster's weaknesses. If I had all my class abilities in the form of an easily stealable book of spells, I'd be wanting to do something to protect it. But if you look at advice given to wizards, even highly optimised wizards rarely bother with spellbook protection. Why? Because the DM isn't going to steal your spellbook.

Full spellcasters have more varied capabilities than other classes, and thus fewer outright weaknesses, but a DM has to watch out for their weaknesses just as the DM has to watch out for everyone else's.

Togo

2014-02-04, 01:52 PM

Let me relate a personal anecdote.

Shrug. I regularly 'carried' the party in a campaign I was playing in, casters and non-casters alike. I was playing a powerful non-caster. When I switched to DMing the group, the group was dominated in combat by an optimised non-caster.

If you're finding that non-casters are overshadowed by casters even when the former are optimised and the latter are not, then maybe you're not playing the non-casters right? Or maybe you're finding that optimising a caster is fairly easy?

In your example of teleport without error, I'd agree that the fault wasn't the DM, but rather the players in not finding a way to contribute. Particularly when the means for said contribution, such as a gnomish sub, were handed to them on a plate.

Ivanhoe

2014-02-04, 01:54 PM

Let me relate a personal anecdote. I was once in a Dragonlance campaign. The DM was an experienced DM and player, and the players ranged between "extremely new" and "one or two campaigns' experience." None of us were remotely optimizers. One member of our party was a Black Robe Wizard. This character, as soon as she researched Teleport Without Error, became our primary source of transportation.

It didn't matter that there were travel caravans; we waited for her spells to refresh. It didn't matter that we had a gnomish engineer in our party who could develop better transportation; we waited for the wizard. It didn't matter that the DM gave us a gnomish submarine, including several Permanenced Unseen Servants to take 10 on the operations, to get us around; when our wizard was off buying reagents or slaughtering the villagers, we sat in a grotto and waited for her. This was not the DM's fault. The mechanics required us to make regular rolls to operate the ship, and provided that travel took time, meaning days or even weeks. Or we could simply wait a day for the wizard to prepare her spells, and be wherever we wanted to be.

Come on. If that is not the laziest or most naive DM in a long while, what is? Such a cool submarine - it would be great for characters, say, levels 5-8. But any DM providing such a thing while the wizard reaches the ability for teleport is asking for it. And even then (lazy DM again), teleport does not get you to unknown places or some that are somewhat protected from teleport and scrying.

That, of course, abstracts from your experience in the same group where the wizard dominated high-level encounters. That happens a lot.:smallfrown:

Killer Angel

2014-02-04, 02:09 PM

Non-Caster Kill them because you never run out of attacks,

In combat situations, non casters tend to run out of HPs, pretty quickly.
And certainly more faster than casters with their spells.

Agincourt

2014-02-04, 02:36 PM

At level 1, the wizard has an AC of 18-22, full mobility, a familiar for stage management, and can just run in circles until the enemies clump enough to blast.

That sounds awesome (possibly better even than the abrupt jaunt fiery blast reserve feat wizard)!
Please explain.

Agility 18, Mage Armour and Sheild I would assume. At 5th level, he would have 22 AC for 5 minutes, and 18 AC for 5 hours. It's around this level that he would also have access to haste and fly, though retreat would probably be used until higher levels.

I realize you were answering for another poster, but I hope there is more to SiuiS's suggestion. A character who does that will only have 1 spell to blast with, and then only if he's a specialist. At level 1, Shield lasts 1 minute, and Mage Armor lasts 1 hour. A level 1 wizard is who uses this strategy is basically committed to the 15 minute adventuring day or, more accurately, the 1 minute adventuring day.

Red Fel

2014-02-04, 02:51 PM

Come on. If that is not the laziest or most naive DM in a long while, what is? Such a cool submarine - it would be great for characters, say, levels 5-8. But any DM providing such a thing while the wizard reaches the ability for teleport is asking for it. And even then (lazy DM again), teleport does not get you to unknown places or some that are somewhat protected from teleport and scrying.

That, of course, abstracts from your experience in the same group where the wizard dominated high-level encounters. That happens a lot.:smallfrown:

That DM wasn't lazy or naive. He was tired 5/6 of the players sitting around doing nothing but saying "We wait for the Wizard" while a single player got to do an entire scene around teleporting to the Black Tower, teleporting to a random town, razing it with her undead minions, raising new undead minions, then teleporting back to the party and sighing because magic-shopping took so long, then waiting until the next day so that she could prepare her spells.

He tried to give us options. We chose not to take them. I don't fault him for that.

Ivanhoe

2014-02-04, 04:38 PM

That DM wasn't lazy or naive. He was tired 5/6 of the players sitting around doing nothing but saying "We wait for the Wizard" while a single player got to do an entire scene around teleporting to the Black Tower, teleporting to a random town, razing it with her undead minions, raising new undead minions, then teleporting back to the party and sighing because magic-shopping took so long, then waiting until the next day so that she could prepare her spells.

He tried to give us options. We chose not to take them. I don't fault him for that.

Well, lazy or naive is maybe a too strong expression. However, if a DM knows a wizard is at some time reaching level 13 and thus quite likely to choose greater teleport, there is not much use to provide the party with a great submarine for transport. And it is not really the players' fault imo (the DM could easily also have told the wizard's player: Please do not choose greater teleport since the submarine is your big plot hook. Or whatever).

I realize you were answering for another poster, but I hope there is more to SiuiS's suggestion. A character who does that will only have 1 spell to blast with, and then only if he's a specialist. At level 1, Shield lasts 1 minute, and Mage Armor lasts 1 hour. A level 1 wizard is who uses this strategy is basically committed to the 15 minute adventuring day or, more accurately, the 1 minute adventuring day.

Well, that would not be as impressive as I first thought. :smallwink: Having 1/day an AC in the fighter's area for some minutes is not that hot, and I do not yet see how the wizard can move around without any danger, and his familiar handling everything at level 1. But thanks for your ideas!

Togo

2014-02-04, 05:13 PM

In combat situations, non casters tend to run out of HPs, pretty quickly.
And certainly more faster than casters with their spells.

In a single combat running out of hp is dead. Unless they die every fight, they're not running out, although they may be running low.

Between fights, out of combat healing is cheap and plentiful once you're past the first few levels. Even something as simple as a wand of lesser vigour works out at less than 2gp per hp.

So there isn't really any reason to run out hp between fights. Of course you can, but it's hardly a system limitation. Spells, on the other hand, can only be restored by an 8 hour rest, which in turn only occurs when the DM decides the plot doesn't need you for the next 8 hours.

Endarire

2014-02-04, 05:58 PM

dascarletm

2014-02-04, 06:07 PM

Sorry if someone said this (I admit I didn't read all 6 pages), but wasn't there a thread just like this a few months ago?

Rejusu

2014-02-04, 06:46 PM

Sorry if someone said this (I admit I didn't read all 6 pages), but wasn't there a thread just like this a few months ago?

There is a discussion like this pretty much every month I'd wager. It's an argument that's been going on since the dawn of time. Although it's usually to do with monks.

Just like there are (admittedly, rare) situations that casters can't handle, but mundanes can.

Anyway, DnD is not a game that exists in a vaccuum. There always exists a DM to tailor the game to his/her liking.

/Snip

Mundanes have options. Not as many and not as powerful as full casters - that much is the ruleset's fault. But they do have enough to be at least deserve a spot in a party - if not, then that is the DM not doing a good enough job at making his game enjoyable for all his players.

The point is though that although you can have a balanced game, that does not make the system balanced. The fact that situations that casters can't handle are far rarer illustrates that there is a discrepancy in terms of utility. The fact that a DM has to work harder to balance a game to make mundane's feel useful is evidence of this.

Look, no one is arguing that no one should play mundanes (although amongst mundanes there's certainly ones I wouldn't bother with outside of dips, monks for example) but that it's a simple matter of fact that casters are generally more powerful. The thing is you don't have to play the most powerful option open to you unless that's what you want to do. The corollary is that you don't have to refrain from playing less powerful options if that's what you want to do.

Play what you want, but there's not much point pretending that casters don't have it better than everyone else. It's been demonstrated time and time again that they do.

The point that more often gets ignored is that there are no mundanes in D&D. Most classes get spellcasting, and they all get magical equipment. The fact that magical equipment duplicates a vast range of spell effects does rather undercut the idea that non-full spellcasters can't fly, tactical teleport, or what have you. Items expand everyone's capabilties into full caster territory. That full casters get them too isn't ignored so much as it is irrelevent to point being made.

No, it's completely relevant. The argument is that magic items close the power gap, however it ignores that casters also get magic items. It's like saying that 6+4 is equal to 10+4. If items expand the capability of a mundane into full caster territory (which they don't, your WBL isn't that high) then they expand full casters beyond that territory. A wizard can duplicate a fighters entire magical arsenal with just his spell book. Then he gets his own magical arsenal on top of that.

And this is before we consider that a well placed disjunction can dissolve that entire arsenal.

Kudaku

2014-02-04, 06:57 PM

For all the talk of mundanes being ick, there are still times as a Wizard when I wish I could spam Crusader's Strike while in Martial Spirit stance.

Sometimes, being a non-caster is what's convenient or enjoyable from a personal perspective.

Also, Hood (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2462.0) is a very powerful and versatile non-caster concept. She can be, but need not be, a caster or manifester.

I personally don't consider the ToB classes part of the "mundane" group. Instead I typically think monks, rogues, fighters, cavaliers, gunslingers... Barbarian to a point, though the PF barbarian has some pretty nice tricks.

Endarire

2014-02-04, 07:23 PM

If "mundane" equals "bad character," then I'd not want to be a mundane either. I view initiators as mundanes (usually), though at the high end of the desirability spectrum.

(Not accusing you of this, but seemed questionable.)

Lans

2014-02-04, 07:35 PM

In combat situations, non casters tend to run out of HPs, pretty quickly.
And certainly more faster than casters with their spells.
Except for crusaders, they keep going and going. And things with fast healing

maniacalmojo

2014-02-04, 07:39 PM

You can make any class powerful. Tier 1 classess are just more powerful and easier to optimize but that is if you do it right. I have played the only mundane in a group of casters and did most of the damage and control stuff. Also a group of 4 wizards in a low level group would die pretty fast. Hit points are a thing and even if you can summon something enemies could still zap you instead.

Knaight

2014-02-04, 08:58 PM

If they do care, however, they have to be the ones making sure they keep the balance and make sure that every party member is useful in a meaningful way. It's not the rogue's fault that you constantly throw undead and costructs at them, but no locks or traps. It's not the fighter's fault that all the encounters you throw them could be easily tanked by the wizard's minions alone.

It's very much the fault of the rogue class that they break down horribly whenever undead and constructs show up (particularly constructs - some of those things are clearly drawn with gears, belts, and other mechanical equipment and yet, are somehow still immune to sneak attack. That is nonsense), and it's fault design that lets Clerics and Wizards handle locks and traps as well as they do relative to the rogue.

You're basically saying that the DM needs to go out of their way to insure that mundane characters are useful. That's an error in the system, and the capacity to work around it doesn't make it not an issue any more than the capacity to dodge potholes in a road makes it in good condition.

OldTrees1

2014-02-04, 09:44 PM

It's very much the fault of the rogue class that they break down horribly whenever undead and constructs show up (particularly constructs - some of those things are clearly drawn with gears, belts, and other mechanical equipment and yet, are somehow still immune to sneak attack. That is nonsense), and it's fault design that lets Clerics and Wizards handle locks and traps as well as they do relative to the rogue.

Sidenote: Dwarven Rogues[Racial Sub from Dragon Mag] get Demolition in addition to Sneak Attack. Demolition includes bonus dice vs Construct/Objects.

TuggyNE

2014-02-04, 10:39 PM

Sidenote: Dwarven Rogues[Racial Sub from Dragon Mag] get Demolition in addition to Sneak Attack. Demolition includes bonus dice vs Construct/Objects.

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.

eggynack

2014-02-04, 10:44 PM

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.
There are things for those things though. Penetrating strike, lightbringer, greater demolition crystal, greater truedeath crystal, wands of vine strike/golem strike, y'know, things. It does not a caster make, but it's a step in the right direction.

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-02-04, 11:07 PM

So let's see... a freshly created account, posting a topic known for starting flame wars, who seems extremely familiar with 'forum culture' for someone supposedly new to the forums, such as blue for sarcasm and such, and basically throws the gauntlet out for the masses to get into a frenzy over...

Seems Legit

I wonder if Takahashi'd is going to be the new Godwin'd of caster vs non-caster threads? Then again, I suppose it is a legitimate example of a CW Samurai actually not only being used in a mid-op setting, but actually winning.

Really, though... you can break the game with any class. Caster just do it easier. Even without item abuse, you can still hit arbitrary damage numbers with melee, which works against anything you can reach and is killable by physical damage (which, unless you are FACING a high-op caster, is probably going to be the case).

In all, 3.5 is a very easily broken game. And unfortunately, there's not really a whole lot you can do to stop it. Test of Spite tried. We spent years trying to put in enough house rules to balance things out.

Then we invented Legend, and said our farewells to 3.5.

Give me a class, and I not only can break the game with it, I probably HAVE done so at some point. CW Samurai being my most famous example of this, however I've done Truenamer Gate Shennanigans, I've done Idiot Crusader arbitrary damage loops, I've done Shadowcaster Shadowpouncer for 4+ full attacks per round... you name it, I've likely done it at some point.

After a while... meh. You can break the game with anything. Why bother complaining about casters? Complain about the mechanics that make it possible.

OldTrees1

2014-02-04, 11:22 PM

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.

Dragon 338 pg96 if my source is accurate.
Replaces levels 1, 3 and 5.
Sneak Attack is reduced by 1d6 at the 5th substitution (nothing else is lost for any of the 3 sub levels)
Gain Know(arch & eng) as a class skill

TuggyNE

2014-02-05, 12:24 AM

There are things for those things though. Penetrating strike, lightbringer, greater demolition crystal, greater truedeath crystal, wands of vine strike/golem strike, y'know, things. It does not a caster make, but it's a step in the right direction.

Most of those aren't rogue-native (well, UMD sorta half-counts), and none of them solve oozes and elementals, which can't be flanked.

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-02-05, 12:49 AM

Most of those aren't rogue-native (well, UMD sorta half-counts), and none of them solve oozes and elementals, which can't be flanked.

There's a very easy solution assuming you are willing to deal only half your Sneak Attack.

Also, oozes and elementals are immune to flanking, but there are other ways to get sneak attack to trigger. A bag of marbles does surprisingly well at forcing balance checks that tend to end up making one denied dex bonus to AC by virtue of making a Balance check without five ranks in the skill.

You know, assuming you don't just want to Swift Hunter Dervish all over them.

TuggyNE

2014-02-05, 01:08 AM

Also, oozes and elementals are immune to flanking, but there are other ways to get sneak attack to trigger. A bag of marbles does surprisingly well at forcing balance checks that tend to end up making one denied dex bonus to AC by virtue of making a Balance check without five ranks in the skill.

They're immune to flanking, and they're immune to sneak attacks, and there is no specific means of removing their immunity like golemstrike. If they weren't immune to flanking, (Lightbringer) Penetrating Strike would be fine, but since they are, it isn't: it doesn't trigger by making an enemy flat-footed or even denying Dex, only on flanking.

As far as I know, then, it is strictly impossible to sneak attack an ooze or elemental.

roko10

2014-02-05, 01:18 AM

SNIP

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

Togo

2014-02-05, 03:24 AM

The point is though that although you can have a balanced game, that does not make the system balanced.

If my game is balanced, why would I give a flying )&%! whether the system itself gives achieves some kind of inner harmony?

More to the point, the only way to balance the system is to narrow the range of what it can do to only balanced options. I don't want my system balanced in that way, only the games I play with it. System balance isn't a good thing.

No, it's completely relevant. The argument is that magic items close the power gap, however it ignores that casters also get magic items. It's like saying that 6+4 is equal to 10+4. If items expand the capability of a mundane into full caster territory (which they don't, your WBL isn't that high) then they expand full casters beyond that territory. A wizard can duplicate a fighters entire magical arsenal with just his spell book. Then he gets his own magical arsenal on top of that.

You've missed the point, which is dminishing returns. A fighter gets access to wizard tricks through magic items. A wizard gets access to fighter tricks through magic items. That narrows the gap between them. It doesn't eliminate it, but pretending a non-full caster can't fight incorporeal undead is just silly.

And this is before we consider that a well placed disjunction can dissolve that entire arsenal.

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 03:32 AM

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

Glad you got the message! :smallsmile:

Any non-caster you would fancy trying out in your next game?

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 05:43 AM

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

TuggyNE

2014-02-05, 05:56 AM

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

No, since a spellbook is not needed or useful in combat and should not even be visible; sundering it also is merely spiteful, since it does not reduce the caster's immediate power in the slightest, in sharp contrast to disjunction's immediate and drastic impact on combat effectiveness.

(Spellbooks can also be protected in various ways, up to and including complete duplicates, which makes the problem potentially much less severe; defenses against disjunction do exist, but are almost exclusively the province of spellcasters.)

Rejusu

2014-02-05, 06:20 AM

If my game is balanced, why would I give a flying )&%! whether the system itself gives achieves some kind of inner harmony?

More to the point, the only way to balance the system is to narrow the range of what it can do to only balanced options. I don't want my system balanced in that way, only the games I play with it. System balance isn't a good thing.

Sigh. I'm not saying it's a good thing. The focus on system balance in 4th is why I don't like it. To achieve a better balance it cut options and homogenised classes. But the fact remains that the system isn't balanced, whether you care that it is or not. Casters inherently have more options open to them and a higher power ceiling. In the context of an individual game a mundane may be able to keep up, but it doesn't change the big picture. Again I'm not saying mundanes aren't worth playing, but I'm not going to pretend they have as much potential as a full caster.

You've missed the point, which is dminishing returns. A fighter gets access to wizard tricks through magic items. A wizard gets access to fighter tricks through magic items. That narrows the gap between them. It doesn't eliminate it, but pretending a non-full caster can't fight incorporeal undead is just silly.

I'll accept that a mundane gets better mileage out of their WBL than a full caster does but it still isn't enough to close the gap. And only a poorly optimised wizard would choose to spend money on fighter tricks, most spend it on more of their own tricks. And I'm not pretending that non casters can't fight flying enemies, or incorporeal enemies, or undead. The point was that mundanes have to equip themselves to deal with certain enemies. The wizard on the other hand comes pre equipped to handle pretty much anything. Thus it's a lot more likely that a mundane will run into a situation they're not equipped to deal with than a caster.

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

Well it's been a long time since I've even played a game with a wizard in the party so no. But whenever this point is raised it seems to ignore the actual rules regarding spellbooks. Firstly a wizard does not need their spellbook to cast spells, only to prepare them. This means that not only is a wizard unlikely to be holding their spellbook in combat they needn't even have it on their person. Even if they are carrying it to even attempt sundering it you'd have to know where he keeps it, which would potentially mean sundering another item to get to it. And while the fighter is fumbling around trying to sunder the wizards bag to get to his book he can still cast spells. Even if you succeed in sundering the book he can still cast spells until he runs out. I'm really not sure where the myth that Wizards become instantly helpless the moment you take their book from them comes from.

They can also make duplicates, and have other means of protecting their spellbook. Or eschewing it altogether. You're also assuming that the fighter can get close enough to even attempt this. And frankly if you're close enough to sunder then grappling is by far a much better way to shut down a wizard. Assuming of course they don't have freedom of movement.

And since when did Wizards become the only full casters in the game? What is the fighter going to sunder when up against a druid? A cleric? A Sorcerer? A Psion?

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 06:42 AM

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 06:45 AM

Really? "Invalid"? Sheesh, that is a new low.

Well if you read what comes in the post after "invalid:" you'll know why I used that word.

EDIT: If you think I'm wrong you're free to discuss.

Spore

2014-02-05, 06:54 AM

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

Your way of telling us your opinion seems arrogant and narrow-minded. Some reasons to play a non-caster:

- You want to rebuild a specific fictional character. Conan, Sindbad or Theseus. And don't TRY and tell me that Conan is a Ragemage or Sindbad could've been a psionic character. that's just shoe-horning in a caster where it isn't needed.

- Your character has the quirk to distrust occult (as in not to be seen) powers. That is actually quite a common trope among fantasy civilisations and NOT reserved only for paranoid dwarves.

- Your character's background didn't allow for any magical training. You are a street rat that couldn't possibly afford to enter the mage's guild, you have never met a druid to mentor you in the art of talking to the elements and you are not pieous enough to be a cleric. Not everyone is special and certainly not every adventurer has hig magical prowess.

- YOU PLAY A ROLEplaying game not a board or card game. Your default option is not to trade units with the enemy to advance as quickly to the board's goal as possible or to buy the Boardwalk in Monopoly. If that role incorporates being a weak street rat that rises to a criminal kingpin, so be it.

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 07:01 AM

Character concept: no. If the concept is a fighting man that relies on strength of arm and brawn, being a pencil-necked caster that transforms himself into a wartroll every battle isn't the same concept.

Too much bookkeeping: what do you know of the level of accepted book-keeping of the posters?

They run out of spells: now here you're just being wrong. Vancian casters can run out of spells. The rate at which this happens depends on the level and the game, and not necessarily on the level of system mastery.

Killer Angel

2014-02-05, 07:17 AM

Except for crusaders, they keep going and going. And things with fast healing

Fair enough, but exceptions are not the norm. :smallwink:

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 07:17 AM

- You want to rebuild a specific fictional character. Conan, Sindbad or Theseus. And don't TRY and tell me that Conan is a Ragemage or Sindbad could've been a psionic character. that's just shoe-horning in a caster where it isn't needed.

Have you seen Conan? If he's not a Gish then why he doesn't wear any armor?

Sindbad could have been anything, he doesn't use any abilities Commoner 1 doesn't have (the book version).

I don't remember Theseus's story very clearly but if it's anything like other greek myths you'll have much easier time refluffing spells ("cast invisibility" -> "hid in a situation where it was impossible to", "cast blindness" -> "took a huge stick and removed an eye of a giant before if could react" ) than actually doing this as a mundane.

- Your character has the quirk to distrust occult (as in not to be seen) powers. That is actually quite a common trope among fantasy civilisations and NOT reserved only for paranoid dwarves.

Psion / warlock /... who just doesn't think his powers are "occult". It's just result of his insight into reality. Or training. Or good luck. (...)

- Your character's background didn't allow for any magical training. You are a street rat that couldn't possibly afford to enter the mage's guild, you have never met a druid to mentor you in the art of talking to the elements and you are not pieous enough to be a cleric. Not everyone is special and certainly not every adventurer has hig magical prowess.

Wilder. Or Beguiler. Or Factotum. Or ...

- YOU PLAY A ROLEplaying game not a board or card game. Your default option is not to trade units with the enemy to advance as quickly to the board's goal as possible or to buy the Boardwalk in Monopoly. If that role incorporates being a weak street rat that rises to a criminal kingpin, so be it.

Yes, but for that very reason you'd better build your character to be actually capable of acting the role you want it to. If you build a straight human barbarian when you want to play Conan you may end up very disappointed when a Pixie kites you to death.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 07:20 AM

Character concept: no. If the concept is a fighting man that relies on strength of arm and brawn, being a pencil-necked caster that transforms himself into a wartroll every battle isn't the same concept.

And buff-persisting cleric falls short where?

Too much bookkeeping: what do you know of the level of accepted book-keeping of the posters?

Well if you can't keep up with bard book keeping then you probably can't keep up with fighter book keeping too.

They run out of spells: now here you're just being wrong. Vancian casters can run out of spells. The rate at which this happens depends on the level and the game, and not necessarily on the level of system mastery.

There are incantation users too.

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 07:20 AM

Have you seen Conan? If he's not a Gish then why he doesn't wear any armor?

If you build a straight human barbarian when you want to play Conan you may end up very disappointed when a Pixie kites you to death.

Have you *read* Conan? Please do, and then tell me how much of Gish he is.

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 07:24 AM

And buff-persisting cleric falls short where?

Well if you can't keep up with bard book keeping then you probably can't keep up with fighter book keeping too.

There are incantation users too.

Clerics largely still rely on pre-buffing, persistent spell or not. Plus it carries its own character concepts (champion of a god, or ideal if that's allowed).

It has nothing to do with keeping up. Some people don't want to carry a binder around, just a sheet of paper.

And you can have a reserve feat fiery blaster wizard, or a warlock, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. Spells are a daily finite resource, period.

Killer Angel

2014-02-05, 07:25 AM

Have you seen Conan? If he's not a Gish then why he doesn't wear any armor?

Leaving aside that Conan doesn't cast any spell, in the book he wears armors. A lot.
And even in the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq9dspskCEE&feature=player_detailpage#t=47), I would say.

Rejusu

2014-02-05, 07:28 AM

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

It makes character building more interesting, it only makes it harder if you're trying to be as powerful as you possibly can. In which case it's your reasoning that's invalid. What valid reason is there to always make the most powerful character you can within the confines of the system? If that's your argument then why not just play Pun-Pun every game?

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.

Show me how you'd implement the concept of a character that doesn't use magic (or psionics) as a caster and I'll eat my hat.

* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.

...

I believe that when most people refer to bookkeeping they're talking about having to manage their spells known, not their prepared spells. Spontaneous casters have this issue too. A tenth level Sorcerer without any tricks has twenty four different spells he can cast at any time, and it only goes up from there. At least prepared casters only need keep the descriptions for the spells they have prepared to hand. Last time I played a spontaneous caster though I kept a set of reference sheets with my spells on them. Tell me that spontaneous casters have no bookkeeping requirements again?

Killer Angel

2014-02-05, 07:35 AM

I believe that when most people refer to bookkeeping they're talking about having to manage their spells known, not their prepared spells. Spontaneous casters have this issue too. A tenth level Sorcerer without any tricks has twenty four different spells he can cast at any time, and it only goes up from there. At least prepared casters only need keep the descriptions for the spells they have prepared to hand. Last time I played a spontaneous caster though I kept a set of reference sheets with my spells on them. Tell me that spontaneous casters have no bookkeeping requirements again?

It's more that wizards and their like, must choose every day what spells they want to be prepared. That is the potential headache, because not all the players like to spend time to think about it.
A spontaneous caster, is almost the magical version of a meleer: you have what you got, no need to worry too much.

Togo

2014-02-05, 07:51 AM

Sigh. I'm not saying it's a good thing. The focus on system balance in 4th is why I don't like it. To achieve a better balance it cut options and homogenised classes. But the fact remains that the system isn't balanced, whether you care that it is or not.

Sure, but since I've already said it's not balanced, and don't want it to be balanced, how is this point in any way relevant?

I'll accept that a mundane gets better mileage out of their WBL than a full caster does but it still isn't enough to close the gap.

Sure, but since the phrase I used was 'narrow the gap', how is this point in any way relevant?

And only a poorly optimised wizard would choose to spend money on fighter tricks, most spend it on more of their own tricks. And I'm not pretending that non casters can't fight flying enemies, or incorporeal enemies, or undead. The point was that mundanes have to equip themselves to deal with certain enemies.

In other words, you're having a long argument with someone that you largely agree with? :smallwink:

The wizard on the other hand comes pre equipped to handle pretty much anything.

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

Worse still, you can look at the sorcerer, who gets a fairly limited range of spells, but can expand that range by spending money on... equipment (wands, potions, runestaffs, etc.) See also beguiler, healer, dread necromancer and other more limited casters.

Well it's been a long time since I've even played a game with a wizard in the party so no. But whenever this point is raised it seems to ignore ....

Something that wasn't relevant to the original point being made. I'm starting to see why these discussions drag on. People have a stock of set talking points and bring them up when triggered by key words, rather than trying to follow the point being made by the other person.

I don't want to give you a hard time, because you're being quite reasonable, but I'd like to break the pattern here.

Let's lay it out:

-I have a game. Not an abstract system comparison, an actual game
-In that game, the highest level of optimisation permitted is a level of effectiveness that both casters and non-casters can reach
-It's already established that needing to balance the game is both necessary and desirable

So what exactly is the problem?

Killer Angel

2014-02-05, 07:57 AM

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

Nope, those 4 spells are a class feature, exactly as the spells for a cleric, or a druid.

OldTrees1

2014-02-05, 08:05 AM

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

Character Concept:
Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth despite his magical inability.

Too much bookkeeping:
Different people consider different things as bookkeeping. I once had a caster that was unwilling to remember the effects of their spells. I could easily see someone that did not want to play a caster because they did not want to have to remember spell details.

Limited abilities:
You probably dismissed this as "They run out of spells". Strangely these are unrelated. Some people just flat out dislike anything listed in # of uses/time period. (I have a minor dislike of that mechanic myself and I have had players that disliked it even more) This is a matter of personal tastes for mechanics. Similar to the difference in personal tastes for mechanics between 3e and 4e players.

Spore

2014-02-05, 08:21 AM

Yes, but for that very reason you'd better build your character to be actually capable of acting the role you want it to. If you build a straight human barbarian when you want to play Conan you may end up very disappointed when a Pixie kites you to death.

If that is your reason to not play a barbarian you are a strange STRANGE little man.

"I won't play character x because it looses in hypothetical scenario #1245!" If you are dumb enough to follow a pixie that wants to kill you I have bad news for you.

Also I am done trying to argue with you. Take that as you want (you will probably count this as victory) but I've learned that you can't argue with some people. While you're right that many concepts are possible with spellcasters, you apparently do not accept any opinions other than your own so I will refuse to discuss with you furthermore.

And you guys should do the same. This thread is circular. We provide concept xy, he shoe-horns in a way how this could be done with a caster.

Maybe Conan's prayer to Crom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K3AKl5qpc) was actually a Miracle spell and Conan is Cleric 18 and the subsequent films are but the realisation of said spell.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 08:38 AM

Leaving aside that Conan doesn't cast any spell, in the book he wears armors. A lot.
And even in the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq9dspskCEE&feature=player_detailpage#t=47), I would say.

That's obviously because anticipating a battle with large group of enemies he used long-duration buffs beforehand and donned armor for additional protection.

(Also gishes can wear aromor if they want to. O of they're based on one of many casters who can cast in armor.)

And really "can alone (well... with his Bard cohort) slay entire armies (in melee)" sounds like a feat of a gish not a "mundane" fighter.

It makes character building more interesting, it only makes it harder if you're trying to be as powerful as you possibly can. In which case it's your reasoning that's invalid. What valid reason is there to always make the most powerful character you can within the confines of the system? If that's your argument then why not just play Pun-Pun every game?

I find it much easier to implement any concept if I allow use of magic in the build. Power isn't much of concern here - it's pretty easy to build weak magic users if you want to.

Show me how you'd implement the concept of a character that doesn't use magic (or psionics) as a caster and I'll eat my hat.

I don't think that's a character concept.

Have you *read* Conan? Please do, and then tell me how much of Gish he is.

Nah, I don't think you'll be interested in the discussion after I'll read it.

Clerics largely still rely on pre-buffing, persistent spell or not. Plus it carries its own character concepts (champion of a god, or ideal if that's allowed).

So...? It does everything you asked for. You might base it of Ranger (Urban and Mystic variants may be useful), Ur-Priest (so you won't have to worship anything), ...

It has nothing to do with keeping up. Some people don't want to carry a binder around, just a sheet of paper.

Too much bookkeeping:
Different people consider different things as bookkeeping. I once had a caster that was unwilling to remember the effects of their spells. I could easily see someone that did not want to play a caster because they did not want to have to remember spell details.

PLay Dragonfireadept. Select invocations with 24h duration. Enjoy.

And you can have a reserve feat fiery blaster wizard, or a warlock, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. Spells are a daily finite resource, period.

Yes, but magic users aren't limited to using spells and that was my point. Period.

Character Concept:
Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth despite his magical inability.

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

You probably dismissed this as "They run out of spells". Strangely these are unrelated. Some people just flat out dislike anything listed in # of uses/time period. (I have a minor dislike of that mechanic myself and I have had players that disliked it even more) This is a matter of personal tastes for mechanics. Similar to the difference in personal tastes for mechanics between 3e and 4e players.

Then you'd better not play a mundane because you will need items with limited uses. How about invocation user? With right invocations you'll have your bases covered and be able to spend gold on items with unlimited usage.

Rejusu

2014-02-05, 08:46 AM

Sure, but since I've already said it's not balanced, and don't want it to be balanced, how is this point in any way relevant?

It's relevant because you misinterpreted my argument that the system is not balanced as one in support of system balance. It's relevant because it corrects that mistaken interpretation.

Sure, but since the phrase I used was 'narrow the gap', how is this point in any way relevant?

It's relevant because you're arguing that the gap is much smaller than it actually is.

In other words, you're having a long argument with someone that you largely agree with? :smallwink:

Not precisely. The point of contention is that your arguments suggest casters don't enjoy as big an advantage as they do over mundanes. And that it can be largely mitigated with judicious use of magic items. This is where we disagree.

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

As already pointed out spells are a class feature for a wizard. He doesn't have to go to magic mart to get a lot of his tricks. A lot of his staple spells can deal with encounters that a mundane would have to equip themselves to handle. Either through specific feats or items. While a rogue has to take a feat just to make one of her primary class features work against undead a caster can take a feat to make their primary class feature work better against everything.

Something that wasn't relevant to the original point being made. I'm starting to see why these discussions drag on. People have a stock of set talking points and bring them up when triggered by key words, rather than trying to follow the point being made by the other person.

Okay now it's really starting to get tiresome that you're calling my points irrelevant. If this line of argument is supposedly "irrelevant" then why did YOU bring it up, multiple times I might add. The point you were making by bringing up the Wizards spellbook is that casters, like mundanes, have their own weaknesses. If this is not the point you were making then I have no idea what you were trying to argue by bringing it up.

I followed the point being made by providing the counter argument that a Wizards spellbook is not a huge weakness. Certainly not comparable to being unable to effectively fight certain enemies. A melee fighter needs flight if he wants to be effective against flying enemies. A wizard need only stuff his spellbook down his pants if he doesn't want a passing fighter to sunder it. Furthermore it's a weakness unique to the Wizard alone, other casters don't possess it.

Honestly this just comes across as an attempt to dismiss the argument outright rather than concede the point. It's not cool.

So what exactly is the problem?

The problem is you're trying apply the context of your game to the big picture.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 08:47 AM

If that is your reason to not play a barbarian you are a strange STRANGE little man.

If you can't recognize an example...

If you are dumb enough to follow a pixie that wants to kill you I have bad news for you.

With it's speed and hide it will have no problem kiting a barbarian (and debuff arrows).

Also I am done trying to argue with you. Take that as you want (you will probably count this as victory) but I've learned that you can't argue with some people. While you're right that many concepts are possible with spellcasters, you apparently do not accept any opinions other than your own so I will refuse to discuss with you furthermore.

I'm doing my best to demonstrate my point.

And you guys should do the same. This thread is circular. We provide concept xy, he shoe-horns in a way how this could be done with a caster.

My point is that you can implement virtually any character concept with a magic user. I think so because I did try to implement many of them and they were all easier to do with using magic.

So I don't have abstract proof that you can. I only have experience that strongly implies it. So all I can do to convince you is to show examples to you.

Maybe Conan's prayer to Crom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K3AKl5qpc) was actually a Miracle spell and Conan is Cleric 18 and the subsequent films are but the realisation of said spell.

=_=

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 08:49 AM

That's obviously because anticipating a battle with large group of enemies he used long-duration buffs beforehand and donned armor for additional protection.

(Also gishes can wear aromor if they want to. O of they're based on one of many casters who can cast in armor.)

And really "can alone (well... with his Bard cohort) slay entire armies (in melee)" sounds like a feat of a gish not a "mundane" fighter.

Your Conan-related points are utterly pointless. You speak of a concept you quite clearly have no understanding of. It's an embarassment.

As for your other points, it's your preference to use magic in one way or another when building characters and I respect that. To state that not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid" as a reason for playing a non-caster is a very strange argument.

Osiris

2014-02-05, 08:55 AM

There are about 2500 wizard spells.

Good. Luck. With. That.

Seriously, in the one game I'm playing a pure caster in I've spent more time researching and choosing spells after games than I have playing them.

Casters are amazing. If you know your options, but if you can detail even 10% of your options off the top of your head you are a freaking savant. I can't even remember my own character's spell list off the top of my head, and I freaking picked it.

Yup, it's very hard to play a caster. It's taking weeks to build my current one. Either way, sometimes you just want to play a rogue or barbarian. You don't always want to be an instant win button. You just want to "eat a hamburger" or whatever it was.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 08:56 AM

Your Conan-related points are utterly pointless. You speak of a concept you quite clearly have no understanding of. It's an embarassment.

Obviously I do have some knowledge and all I wrote fits it pretty well.
Also obviously I'm not going to build Conan for you if I ever watched half an episode of it. If you did bother to give some actual description of "Conan concept" you have I could.

As for your other points, it's your preference to use magic in one way or another when building characters and I respect that. To state that not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid" as a reason for playing a non-caster is a very strange argument.

And I never stated that 'not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid"'. In fact I did give two reasons one might want to.

And I wrote that other reasons are invalid (which might have been a wrong choice of word... would "boil down to the two above" be better?).

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 08:59 AM

Yup, it's very hard to play a caster. It's taking weeks to build my current one. Either way, sometimes you just want to play a rogue or barbarian. You don't always want to be an instant win button. You just want to "eat a hamburger" or whatever it was.

Actually it's pretty easy. Just pick a fixed-list caster and don't PrC. Or Bard if you want fewer spells. Or invocation-user if you want even fewer.

And as a magic user you're not forced to have win-buttons. You're free to play at lower power level if you want to.

Gwendol

2014-02-05, 09:05 AM

Obviously I do have some knowledge and all I wrote fits it pretty well.
Also obviously I'm not going to build Conan for you if I ever watched half an episode of it. If you did bother to give some actual description of "Conan concept" you have I could.

As always, google has the answer:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230780

Wargamer

2014-02-05, 09:06 AM

One of my gaming group always figured that from 3.0 onwards the "Wizard problem" was down to WotC never making it clear that magic is not meant to be easily obtained.

Think on this: there is enough variation in the core rules to make almost any kind of Wizard, from Gandalf to Harry Potter to Ridcully. The 3.0 attitude is that you can take the D&D core rules and make your own world, hence why there is so much flexibility and potential interpretation within classes.

The problem is (by his theory) that Wizards are meant to have a very narrow spell book. The DM should know what spells the player could potentially have and plan accordingly, designing the campaign in such a way that new spells are handed out like magic items are to other players.

But what actually happens is casters just have free reign to grab every spell and utterly swamp a campaign with wild arcana.

Magic is, to me, the most boring part of D&D, and I think this freedom of magic only hurts the game. Gandalf was not an awesome character because he cast Cloudkill over entire armies; his magic was supplementary, used in subtle ways that often hinted, but never showed greater power could be at his command.

How many D&D wizards act like Gandalf? Maybe at Level 1 or 2, but Gandalf is meant to be level 12-14 at least in D&D terms. What Level 12 wizard doesn't hurl spells at every obstacle without thinking?

So, ultimately, this is why I don't play casters; they ruin the game by their existence.

ahenobarbi

2014-02-05, 09:22 AM

One of my gaming group always figured that from 3.0 onwards the "Wizard problem" was down to WotC never making it clear that magic is not meant to be easily obtained.

However rules make it extremly easy to obtain.

The problem is (by his theory) that Wizards are meant to have a very narrow spell book.

However rules give wizard a lot of spells (even without buying any). And clerics get all of them.

Magic is, to me, the most boring part of D&D, and I think this freedom of magic only hurts the game. Gandalf was not an awesome character because he cast Cloudkill over entire armies; his magic was supplementary, used in subtle ways that often hinted, but never showed greater power could be at his command.

Did you try other magic subsystems? Invocation users are much easier to play (and to handle).

How many D&D wizards act like Gandalf? Maybe at Level 1 or 2, but Gandalf is meant to be level 12-14 at least in D&D terms. What Level 12 wizard doesn't hurl spells at every obstacle without thinking?

For example my previous wizard often did cast one spell per battle then just stayed around making sure everything works out as planned. Heck once all he did was to tell others to use blunt weapons and watch them kill some slime.

So, ultimately, this is why I don't play casters; they ruin the game by their existence.

I disagree. You can play a caster and not ruin a game. You just need to build and play on proper power level (nothing forces casters to one-shot dragons with Shivering touch...).

OldTrees1

2014-02-05, 09:35 AM

Play Dragonfireadept. Select invocations with 24h duration. Enjoy.

Indeed that is one of the options for people that do not like Bookkeeping. However it is far from the only option. Warlock and the mundane classes are also options that someone that dislikes Bookkeeping would enjoy.

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

Yeah, magical inability and spellcasting (and Wildshape) do not mix. That sounded like a deliberate misunderstanding. The point of the character is one without magical ability that tries to prove their worth despite their magical inability.

Then you'd better not play a mundane because you will need items with limited uses. How about invocation user? With right invocations you'll have your bases covered and be able to spend gold on items with unlimited usage.

Which items would those be? Flight? Mundanes can have Ex Flight with unlimited uses. People that dislike unlimited uses will choose between Invocation classes and mundane classes since neither obsoletes the other.

Rejusu

2014-02-05, 09:38 AM

Since Gandalf (and the other wizards as well as Sauron) are all immortal god spirits he's probably a bit more than a level 12 wizard. Maybe he only has that many class levels but I bet he has a huge level adjustment.

Togo

2014-02-05, 10:07 AM

It's relevant because you misinterpreted my argument that the system is not balanced as one in support of system balance. It's relevant because it corrects that mistaken interpretation.

I'm happy to confirm I fully understand that you don't support system balance, and agree with the reasons you gave for doing so.

It's relevant because you're arguing that the gap is much smaller than it actually is..
Pretty sure I've not mentioned anything about the size of said gap, except to say that equipment makes it narrower than it would be without equipment.

Not precisely. The point of contention is that your arguments suggest casters don't enjoy as big an advantage as they do over mundanes. And that it can be largely mitigated with judicious use of magic items. This is where we disagree.

Do we? Full casters are very much more powerful than non casters. I've argued that they don't run out of hp at the drop of hat, and that any difficulty they face in effectively fighting a wide range of opponents is largely covered by their equipment, just as casters cover it through a variety of spells.

Okay now it's really starting to get tiresome that you're calling my points irrelevant. If this line of argument is supposedly "irrelevant" then why did YOU bring it up, multiple times I might add. The point you were making by bringing up the Wizards spellbook is that casters, like mundanes, have their own weaknesses. If this is not the point you were making then I have no idea what you were trying to argue by bringing it up.

So I noticed. The point I was making was that DMs tend to avoid exploiting weaknesses that cripple a character entirely. Disjunction, a point you brought up, tends not to get cast repeatedly on PCs simply because retooling and replacing a high level character's equipment is a pain. Similarly, despite there being any number of solid plot reasons why a wizard would be separated from his spellbook, the need for which is a weakness specifically laid out in the rulebook, it doesn't tend to happen because it's not very fun for the wizard. (spiteful, another character called it).

Certainly not comparable to being unable to effectively fight certain enemies. A melee fighter needs flight if he wants to be effective against flying enemies.

I don't understand what class can't use a bow. Even with flight, chasing after a fast-moving opponent is rarely the best option.

The problem is you're trying apply the context of your game to the big picture.

No, I'm trying to understand what this 'big picture' is and how it effects an individual game. We've got as far as the system shouldn't be balanced, and that it is desirable to iron out balance issues on the level of an individual game. So what remains in the 'big picture' if it doesn't effect an individual game? Is it just an intellectual abstraction?

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-02-05, 10:39 AM

They're immune to flanking, and they're immune to sneak attacks, and there is no specific means of removing their immunity like golemstrike. If they weren't immune to flanking, (Lightbringer) Penetrating Strike would be fine, but since they are, it isn't: it doesn't trigger by making an enemy flat-footed or even denying Dex, only on flanking.

As far as I know, then, it is strictly impossible to sneak attack an ooze or elemental.

There's a feat that lets you deal one half sneak attack even when the target is immune to sneak attack.

Elementals and oozes are not immune to being denied dex bonus to AC. Which is also a trigger for sneak attack.

Swift Hunter can allow you to apply precision-based damage to any favored enemy, and that can include oozes and elementals, and of course Scout has a different triggering method that does not involve flanking.

kirerellim

2014-02-05, 11:51 AM

For my players, not everyone has the understanding, or wants to use the cleverness required to play a mage, especially as our games tend to only last to level 5 or 10. While there are some pretty bad ass level 5 spells and below spells, they prefer getting a large part of their abilities, like smacking things with sticks, early on lol.

While I myself love mages, and obsess over dnd books, finding /all/ the spells, most of my players are not obsessive or big readers. They do not want to look up every spell they have to see what it is and how much it can do. They only advise me what they want to be able to do and I build their characters for them. They like being able to look at their three page character sheet and know exactly what they are able to do, rather than a three page character sheet and a 10 page spell list of cleric level 5 ><.

In terms of power, there is no argument. A magi of almost any type in mid game will beat a pure martial class often. Then again, it depends on the magi and who see's who first.

Togo

2014-02-05, 04:17 PM

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

Since when has a wildshape ranger been a caster? They have, what, one spell a day if that?

TuggyNE

2014-02-05, 08:17 PM

There's a feat that lets you deal one half sneak attack even when the target is immune to sneak attack.

Which feat is this? (Lightbringer) Penetrating Strike is an ACF that allows half sneak attack against immune targets when flanking. And only when flanking. Which elementals and oozes are also immune to.

Swift Hunter can allow you to apply precision-based damage to any favored enemy, and that can include oozes and elementals, and of course Scout has a different triggering method that does not involve flanking.

Swift Hunter, from what I can tell, allows skirmish damage, not just any old precision damage. Sneak attack is not skirmish.

ShneekeyTheLost

2014-02-06, 09:41 PM

Swift Hunter, from what I can tell, allows skirmish damage, not just any old precision damage. Sneak attack is not skirmish.

Swift Hunter applies to ALL precision-based damage, not just skirmish. It explicitly calls out precision-based damage, and explicitly includes Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike as examples.

And Swift Hunter is very easy to qualify for.

Besides, even if you only do Skirmish, you can still get some very nasty damage numbers by going with Scout and Ranger stacking for Skirmish damage then throwing in some Dervish and dual-wielding to be able to make a full attack (or more!) while moving around to activate skirmish.

No flanking necessary!

TuggyNE

2014-02-06, 09:54 PM

Swift Hunter applies to ALL precision-based damage, not just skirmish. It explicitly calls out precision-based damage, and explicitly includes Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike as examples.

Ah, OK. That's the problem I was running into.

Isamu Dyson

2014-02-07, 02:37 AM

The Record of Lodoss (anime inspired by D&D) Party seems to get along fine. This is despite the fact that the party composition is split down the middle in terms of melee and magic.

To the uninitiated, there's Parn (Fighter), Ghim (Fighter), Woodchuck (Rogue), Slayn (Wizard), Etoh (Cleric) and Deedlit (Wizard? Wizard/Fighter?).

Are there any other fictional parties based on/inspired by D&D that do fine with a similar mix of archetypes?

Gotterdammerung

2014-02-07, 03:18 AM

My personal answer would be a "too many eggs in one basket approach."

I feel that a party of mixed capabilities ends up stronger in the long run. I find that in a group composed entirely of casters there is less synergy. This is NOT to say that it has to be that way. Of course I could build a perfect caster group with perfect synergy. But in actual game play with real other people it just never happens. Caster builds tend to get a little selfish with their concepts and powers. I find that when a group has half casters and half muggle builds the casters synergize with the muggles without even trying. It also covers a party weakness when magic gets shut down. I think of it like a good crew from One Piece. YES it would be strong to have an entire crew of devil fruit eaters! But then who is gonna save Luffy when he falls in the water?

roko10

2014-02-07, 04:25 AM

But then who is gonna save Luffy when he falls in the water?

Someone with a rope.

jjcrpntr

2014-02-07, 09:42 AM

Because fun?

Not all games are played at TO levels of optimization.

I don't know about you but the idea of playing the same thing every game bores the hell outta me.

So far in terms of fun my favorite characters have all been poor choices from TO standpoints. Sorcerer/Cleric Mystic Thurge, Weretiger to just hit things, and my Swifthunter.

This

I'm on my second 3.5 dnd character. First was a cleric that just casted spiritual weapon and then ran in to beat on things with his glaive (fun). New character is a Ranger who doesn't use spells. Should have gone the spellless ranger variant but to late now. It's a lot of fun to play and ultimately that's the point of the game right? To have fun.

Meth In a Mine

2014-02-07, 09:44 AM

I play a mundane for a number of reasons.
1. It's easier, I don't need to keep track of as much stuff.
2. It's a load of fun taking an arrow in the mouth and then spitting it right out.
3. I guard the casters. One surprise round and a flukey initiative roll, and that wizard gets his head twisted off like a grape by an ogre barbarian. A fighter can hold it off while the casters give their party the edge they need to succeed.
4. I'm always ready. If a rogue comes by and steals the wizard's spell-book while he sleeps what is he? A commoner with a good will save.
5. Most imortant: IT'S FUN! I find climbing up a cliff more fun than just using fly. I find slamming an enemy's face with a shield more fun than casting stinking cloud or glitterdust.

SiuiS

2014-02-07, 10:03 AM

That sounds awesome (possibly better even than the abrupt jaunt fiery blast reserve feat wizard)!
Please explain.

Armor.

The actual penalties for wearing armor are ludicrously small. A wizard in +8 armor with a shield spell and high dexterity is almost untouchable. Armor playing amidst caster robes also looks fantastic. A cross class rank in tumble (it's trained only I believe) and gratuitous use of readied actions to avoid charges from nearest guys, then play chess in your mind. You'll find the point where everyone finally gets close enough there is no escape, and they've got you now...

And then you blast them.

And this, I think, beautifully encapsulates one of the biggest answers to the title question. To wit, why would somebody play a non-caster? Concept. And I happen to have great respect for any DM who says, "Put aside class names and mechanics. Tell me your concept, give me the fluff, and we'll find the crunch that fits around it, rather than the reverse."

A good character is like a chocolate truffle with a hazelnut-encrusted shell, in my mind - fluffy on the inside, crunchy on the outside.

Concept, concept, concept. Therein lies the path to enlightenment.

This also causes the issue though. The original concepts for casters are intentionally over powered. Caster concepts are one-man army chess masters who puppeteer everything from the shadows with a well placed finger of death, etc., and are designed with a high risk, high reward suite of abilities that reward precise micromanagement.

Wizards et al are the Lights of the game, who have eight moves planned out with contingencies. I honestly only have a problem with casters being strong when it's not conceptual, but just a mechanical advantage. Khelendros, the austere, lightning wizard who subjugated dragons first by allying with them and then by earning their respect and fear through his brutal applications of force? Cool, go nuts. Wizard with an electric theme who uses feat cheese to get a dragon familiar, dragon cohort and dragon followers? Less cool because why do you want dragons? Just because? Boring. Stop winning, there's no drama.

Alaris

2014-02-07, 10:50 AM

Looks like my answer is a bit unusual, but here goes: because I like optimization. As a wizard, winning at D&D is way too easy. You win when you pick wizard as your class and get >16 intelligence. Most casters are similarly boring. As a mundane character, however, you have to carefully pick your abilities and actually put effort into your build. That's more interesting.

Eh... then your DM is doing it wrong.

Sorry, while that sounds rude, it's kinda true. Yeah, Wizards are powerful. But they are NOT an "I Win" button in themselves.

For instance, I played a Generalist Wizard, pretty much straight, in the last campaign I played in. Really powerful. Lots of awesome stuff. But at every turn, my DM still managed to provide a solid challenge. Enemy Wizards/Clerics, unique puzzles/encounters.

That said, when I've played 'Mundane' characters in his campaign (a Ranger, more recently), he was also able to provide adequate challenge, without being too overpowering or crazy.

I'd say a lot of it is about the DM... both Mundanes and Spellcasters are very fun to play.

Rejusu

2014-02-07, 10:54 AM

Armor.

The actual penalties for wearing armor are ludicrously small. A wizard in +8 armor with a shield spell and high dexterity is almost untouchable. Armor playing amidst caster robes also looks fantastic. A cross class rank in tumble (it's trained only I believe) and gratuitous use of readied actions to avoid charges from nearest guys, then play chess in your mind. You'll find the point where everyone finally gets close enough there is no escape, and they've got you now...

And then you blast them.

Well since the penalty for being non proficient is equal to the check penalty you can just ignore it for leather and padded. You're still taking a 5-10% arcane spell failure chance and it's not as if you have so many spells at level one that you can afford to gamble with them. And you'd have to have shield up constantly to maintain an AC of 18 or above. To get that high without it at level one you'd incur mobility penalties, a greater ASF, penalties to attack rolls (and skills like tumble), and you'd need a very good dex score. And unless you've got a lot of good rolls con and intelligence should have priority over dexterity.

I'd say a lot of it is about the DM... both Mundanes and Spellcasters are very fun to play.

You're both half right. It's more about party composition than it is anything else. Wizard is an "I win" button if the rest of your group is a CW samurai, a monk, and a paladin. The DM can't throw something too challenging your way as everyone else would at best be unable to contribute and at worst die horribly. However if you're grouped with CoD-zilla or you're playing a humble fighter then the DM can give you something that's the entire parties speed.

Shining Wrath

2014-02-07, 11:08 AM

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
... SNIP ....
...

You, sir, do not get to tell me that my character concept should instead be the caster version of it you might prefer, crunch power be damned. Seriously, don't tell a whole bunch of people that they should think more like you or they are "invalid".

Obviously I do have some knowledge and all I wrote fits it pretty well.
Also obviously I'm not going to build Conan for you if I ever watched half an episode of it. If you did bother to give some actual description of "Conan concept" you have I could.

And I never stated that 'not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid"'. In fact I did give two reasons one might want to.

And I wrote that other reasons are invalid (which might have been a wrong choice of word... would "boil down to the two above" be better?).

I assumed the "Conan was a gish" argument was sarcasm. Having read everything Robert E Howard ever published, I will assert that this is wrong to the point of deranged insanity. Conan, in D&D terms, never took a single level in any class which at any level gained any ability to cast any sort of magic.

Der_DWSage

2014-02-07, 11:37 AM

Obviously I do have some knowledge [of Conan] and all I wrote fits it pretty well.

...You realize his title, right? Conan The Barbarian? The strongman who was stronger than all others due to his ability to focus his sheer primal rage?

I've never read the books or even watched the movies, but even I know that Conan was about as nonmagic as they come. No, Conan was definitely not a gish. If it's sarcasm...for the love of god, adopt blue text. I really can't tell if you're sincere, trolling, or just really don't know anything about him.

Philistine

2014-02-07, 02:51 PM

Since this topic is naturally personal anecdote-heavy, here's another one.

I was playing a Rogue//Warblade in a low-level gestalt game, and in one encounter our melee-heavy party got ambushed by snipers firing from the upper story of a nearby building. The Warlock//Bard simply Fell Flighted up to window level and commenced Eldritch Blasting, but we melee types were extremely wary of a trap if we simply charged inside and made our way to the upper floor (a similar situation had resulted in a near-TPK just a few encounters earlier). I looked at the battle map and had an inspiration. So I called the DM aside to explain what I wanted to try; he grinned fiendishly and replied, "Roll for it." Fortunately, I rolled well. So my character got a running start, leaped up onto the shoulders of our biggest bruiser and used her as a springboard to jump even higher, just managing to catch the sniping enemies' window sill (mechanically, cutting her character's height from the required jump brought the bottom of the window within my character's vertical reach). Then the character flipped up and in, tumbled past the foe standing at the window, and finally skidded to a stop inside the room, standing with his sword in low guard and spitting defiance at the ambushers; he spent the next couple of turns Bull Rushing snipers out the window so the rest of the melee could whomp on 'em on the ground.

Now, a couple of points here. The caster got into the action faster: my character's action required both my character and the bruiser character to move into position the previous round, so I didn't start my attempt until the caster had already been at it for a round. The caster got into the action easier: no rolls needed, he just had to say, "I fly up to window level." The caster did it better: he was able to move into position and begin attacking in the same turn, whereas I had to double move (which left me in a very vulnerable position until my Initiative came up again). And the caster did it more reliably: the caster player didn't have to ask the DM for special adjudication just to be allowed to try what he wanted to do, he merely used his abilities exactly as intended. But. The caster's actions, effective as they were, didn't prompt applause from around the table, or inspire another player to describe them as "the coolest thing [he'd] ever seen in D&D," or result in a new memetic touchstone for the campaign. That was a fun day. :smallamused:

Kelb_Panthera

2014-02-07, 08:39 PM

4. I'm always ready. If a rogue comes by and steals the wizard's spell-book while he sleeps what is he? A commoner with a good will save.

This just isn't true unless the wizard's burned through his entire repertoire of prepared spells for the day before he rests. Those spells don't just go away 24 hours after they've been prepared and he can scribe any spell he has prepared without fail in a new book. If you steal a wizard's spellbook it certainly hurts him but he's still a freakin' wizard unless you manage to get him to burn out too.

And, of course, that assumes his spellbook can be stolen. CAr offers the option to have your spellbook scribed directly into your skin as tattoos. Good luck stealing that. There's also the eidetic wizard variant that allows them to simply memorize their spellbook and prepare spells from memory.

eggynack

2014-02-07, 08:45 PM

This just isn't true unless the wizard's burned through his entire repertoire of prepared spells for the day before he rests. Those spells don't just go away 24 hours after they've been prepared and he can scribe any spell he has prepared without fail in a new book. If you steal a wizard's spellbook it certainly hurts him but he's still a freakin' wizard unless you manage to get him to burn out too.

And, of course, that assumes his spellbook can be stolen. CAr offers the option to have your spellbook scribed directly into your skin as tattoos. Good luck stealing that. There's also the eidetic wizard variant that allows them to simply memorize their spellbook and prepare spells from memory.
Alternatively, you could always make it difficult to steal instead of making it physically impossible. You're a wizard. Wizards are the hardest to steal stuff from, between easy access to extradimensional space to magical traps to random other spells. Wizards are tricky as hell. You steal their spellbook from the demiplane specifically created to house it, and then it turns out that the book is just a pile of explosive runes, and the real book is under the ocean, and then you go under the ocean to get the real thing, and it turns out that the real book is next to the explosive runes one or something. Stealing from a wizard isn't the best plan.