Wizards and Sorcerers.

[Marywn]

For some odd reason, I've always stayed away from full spellcasters. I don't really know why. Has and anyone that just refuses to play full spellcasters?

I have played monk, rogue, druid, fighter and paladin.

[CTurbo]

They're weak and squishy at low levels, but nigh unstoppable at high levels.


Clerics and Bards are my favorite full casters in 5e

[Skyblaze]

I'm about to be playing a sorcerer in a campaign starting this week. I like them more than other spell casters due to metamagic, with that I feel less constrained by the text of the spell itself.

[NaughtyTiger]

i don't like to play martial characters... so i get it.

[Millstone85]

So you do not regard the druid as a full spellcaster? Is it because Wild Shape makes them gishy?

I would myself have a hard time playing a class that I regard as purely magic or martial. The influence of video games and anime, perhaps. I want the sword and the sorcery.

[Marywn]

Let me get this out of the way. I don't hate spellcasters.

I just haven't ever played a wizard or sorcerer, though I'm going to soon.
Druids have a different feel to them, Your not casting spells from a book, nor were you born with immense inant spellcasting.
Druids have both utility and damage, and perception. I hope, because wis is there main stat.

[Citan]

For some odd reason, I've always stayed away from full spellcasters. I don't really know why. Has and anyone that just refuses to play full spellcasters?

I have played monk, rogue, druid, fighter and paladin.
Hi
Well....


I would myself have a hard time playing a class that I regard as purely magic or martial. The influence of video games and anime, perhaps. I want the sword and the sorcery.
This comment probably reflects my own taste the best.
It's not that I disklike fullcasters, I really appreciate them overall especially at low levels... But apart from a few one-shots at very high levels, I didn't play end-game fullcasters nor would I feel any frustration from that.

Especially Wizards, Druids and Clerics are imo classes that would be really enjoyable in long campaign when you can really develop your influence to shape the world... Same could be told for some Bards, Sorcerers or Warlocks built as such...
But I'm usually the DM around of my group for 5e, and our campaign is so slow that we probably won't reach level 20 before dying... And other games are usually short pieces.

And when I'm looking at fullcasters from a purely mechanical perspective, I don't particularly fancy the highest level spells. I enjoy using some from time to time, but that's all. Also some of the most interesting spells fall into aforementioned problem of being most useful in a "true" world, so there is that. There are others which I sense can be completely awesome, but I just wouldn't have a clue how to use them efficiently even with a nice and open DM.

What's the weirdest is that, at the same time, I feel like most "utility" cantrips can often be as powerful or better as 3rd or 4th level spells, considering the things I allow as a DM and am allowed as a player, because taking into considerations how people would react to strange things (even in a magical world, not everyone is that savvy).

My last point of contention with casters is the number of spell known: barring Clerics and Druids, everyone else is limited by essence. Only Wizard can come close to the former, and possibly surpass them, but it's highly DM dependent.

Finally, I really like the idea of being "still within humane conception". So being a gish that has many great spells at disposal, can answer a stupidly large number of situations efficiently but is, in the end, "just one guy among others", is perfectly fine with me.

That's why I like Druid so much, although I'm not fond of the fluff attached to it. Just Wild Shape is worth several dozen spells. :)
Also Sorcerers with Subtle: being able to try things and get away undetected in case of failure (well, obviously depends on which spell you cast, a Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, Subtle or not, is *not* subtle ^^), and more generally being a guy following the fundamentals of power from chinese philosophy ("true power stays undetectable" in a very simplifying nutshell) feels very satisfying to me. :)

[Guy Lombard-O]

My last point of contention with casters is the number of spell known: barring Clerics and Druids, everyone else is limited by essence. Only Wizard can come close to the former, and possibly surpass them, but it's highly DM dependent.

Amen to that, brother!

I tried playing a wizard, thinking it would be great fun. I was thinking that the overall versatility of having a large spell list would mean lots of option and a fun character.

My actual experience was that I was stuck with the spells I picked from leveling up. No scrolls. No wizard enemies with spellbooks I could take as treasure. No NPCs would sell me a spell I could copy above 1st level. All of which probably didn't matter, because I couldn't afford the inks to copy a higher level spell into my book anyway, let alone make a back up spell book. Which would have been really nice, since my spell book got taken.

I doubt I'll every try wizard again. Generally, my DM is pretty good. So I'll put it down to luck that things just didn't work out well (he enforced the initiative rules pretty strictly, so my familiar was usually helping somebody else using owl flyby because if it stuck around waiting for my turn, it'd be dead by then). Fair enough, but I gave up on both familiars and wizards.

That said, full casters are great. Personally, I've decided that gishes are more well-rounded and more fun to play. Full caster (possibly well designed half caster) + extra attack + something fun to do with bonus action seems like a pretty foolproof recipe for good times.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Amen to that, brother!

I tried playing a wizard, thinking it would be great fun. I was thinking that the overall versatility of having a large spell list would mean lots of option and a fun character.

My actual experience was that I was stuck with the spells I picked from leveling up. No scrolls. No wizard enemies with spellbooks I could take as treasure. No NPCs would sell me a spell I could copy above 1st level. All of which probably didn't matter, because I couldn't afford the inks to copy a higher level spell into my book anyway, let alone make a back up spell book. Which would have been really nice, since my spell book got taken.

I doubt I'll every try wizard again. Generally, my DM is pretty good. So I'll put it down to luck that things just didn't work out well (he enforced the initiative rules pretty strictly, so my familiar was usually helping somebody else using owl flyby because if it stuck around waiting for my turn, it'd be dead by then). Fair enough, but I gave up on both familiars and wizards.

That said, full casters are great. Personally, I've decided that gishes are more well-rounded and more fun to play. Full caster (possibly well designed half caster) + extra attack + something fun to do with bonus action seems like a pretty foolproof recipe for good times.

What were the costs you were seeing for scrolls and what kind of loot were you getting per adventure? One campaign we are in the DM is trying to control our power so we aren't seeing much loot.

[Mr.Spastic]

From my experiences with full casters I can say a few things.

1. The party thinks you have an answer for everything despite only being able to take two spells whenever you get a new spell level.

2. The party try's to dictate what spells you cast and when.

3. If you have healing magic, nobody ever thinks you cast it enough.

I personally love playing full casters and have had a lot of fun playing them too. Most of my negative experiences come from my party members trying to be "helpful" with all of their suggestions.

Having played most full caster's at least once though there are a few things that I can see would turn people off.

1. Spell Selection. The worst culprit is the Sorcerer with their puny number of spells known. Pair this with people who think you should take certain things and wont stop nagging you about it and it can be pretty obnoxious.

2. Book Keeping. I get it. It's hard to keep track of what spells you can cast and all of your resources. The worst culprits of this are surprisingly the Druid and Cleric. With them being able to switch spells out on the fly it can be a lot to learn the whole spell list to see it there are better spells you should take for certain situations.

3. Wizards and Sorcerers and squishy. This... is so true. It's never fun to be taken out of combat and being a big target as the dude who just chucked a fireball doesn't help.

4. Spellcasting is weird. There are a lot of funky rules that can come into play when dealing with spellcasting and a even experienced players forget them sometimes.

P.S. This is all my opinion so please don't try to debate whether or not something is the worst at what I said it was. That is not what the thread is about.

P.P.S. One fun thing that you people don't realize is that you can target enemies with haste. If they are willing to except it you can immediately drop concentration and they lose their next turn. Really fun when you pull an "I have turned to the side of evil!" rouse and then your party gets a whole turn off.

[JellyPooga]

They're weak and squishy at low levels, but nigh unstoppable at high levels.

Counterpoint; the last (single-classed) Wizard I played was the party Tank from 2nd level onwards. High Con Abjurers have a butt-ton of effective AC/HP, even at low levels.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

From my experiences with full casters I can say a few things.

1. The party thinks you have an answer for everything despite only being able to take two spells whenever you get a new spell level.

2. The party try's to dictate what spells you cast and when.

3. If you have healing magic, nobody ever thinks you cast it enough.

I personally love playing full casters and have had a lot of fun playing them too. Most of my negative experiences come from my party members trying to be "helpful" with all of their suggestions.

Having played most full caster's at least once though there are a few things that I can see would turn people off.

1. Spell Selection. The worst culprit is the Sorcerer with their puny number of spells known. Pair this with people who think you should take certain things and wont stop nagging you about it and it can be pretty obnoxious.

2. Book Keeping. I get it. It's hard to keep track of what spells you can cast and all of your resources. The worst culprits of this are surprisingly the Druid and Cleric. With them being able to switch spells out on the fly it can be a lot to learn the whole spell list to see it there are better spells you should take for certain situations.

3. Wizards and Sorcerers and squishy. This... is so true. It's never fun to be taken out of combat and being a big target as the dude who just chucked a fireball doesn't help.

4. Spellcasting is weird. There are a lot of funky rules that can come into play when dealing with spellcasting and a even experienced players forget them sometimes.

P.S. This is all my opinion so please don't try to debate whether or not something is the worst at what I said it was. That is not what the thread is about.

P.P.S. One fun thing that you people don't realize is that you can target enemies with haste. If they are willing to except it you can immediately drop concentration and they lose their next turn. Really fun when you pull an "I have turned to the side of evil!" rouse and then your party gets a whole turn off.

I'll second you on the healing. My Bard just has Healing Word and folks are asking to be healed all the time. I prefer to save it for when they're dying and the 6HP really matters.

You know, a few of them also dislike being Polymorphed into a Giant Ape when they are low on HP....

I like the book keeping aspect, even planning spells a few levels in advance for my Bard is entertaining. I like spreadsheets and model railroads also though lol.

[Mr.Spastic]

I like the book keeping aspect, even planning spells a few levels in advance for my Bard is entertaining. I like spreadsheets and model railroads also though lol.

Yeah me too. But some people don't want to track a lot of stuff while playing the game. It's just something that I noticed to deter some people from wanting to play full casters.

[Particle_Man]

Another point is that bloodline matters with Sorcerers. If you take the Wild Mage with that Wild Surge, you should check that your party is ok with those random effects as well as how often your DM is going to have you roll for the wild surge.

[Snowbluff]

I always play some kind of caster. The more casting the better. I hate doing the same thing from fight to fight.
I have a Fighter/Arcane Trickster buddy. Even with that level of casting he got bored in the mid levels because he was doing the same thing over and over.

Another point is that bloodline matters with Sorcerers. If you take the Wild Mage with that Wild Surge, you should check that your party is ok with those random effects as well as how often your DM is going to have you roll for the wild surge.

I think this is very important.

[Anonymouswizard]

i don't like to play martial characters... so i get it.

This. I tried to play a Fighter once and I got bored, had multiclassed to Cleric before I got Extra Attack. But I get people coming from the opposite angle, those who don't want to deal with the complexity of a caster.

[ChildofLuthic]

I really hate playing casters tbh. I think it comes down to preferring the archetype of a strong risktaker with reckless bravery rather than a clever chessmaster who uses his wit to overcome his vulnerability. Even if I do play a character with some magic, I use their magic as little as possible, like a paladin who uses his spell slots to smite, or an EK that spams shield and absorb elements.

[TheMoxiousOne]

Also Sorcerers with Subtle: being able to try things and get away undetected in case of failure (well, obviously depends on which spell you cast, a Magic Missile or Scorching Ray, Subtle or not, is *not* subtle ^^)

Most fun I've ever had in D&D is using subtle spell on Time Stop with a GM that said a spell with no components was undetectable and thusly uncounterable. Many shenanigans ensued. :smallamused:

[Misterwhisper]

Most fun I've ever had in D&D is using subtle spell on Time Stop with a GM that said a spell with no components was undetectable and thusly uncounterable. Many shenanigans ensued. :smallamused:

I have always had the DM rule that on session zero the DM and the Players can agree on certain things that they do not want in the game, and it sticks for both sides.

DM might say, they do not want teleport spells further than 50 feet in the game because they like the idea of long travel times.
PCs have a choice to agree and if they do NOBODY can do it.

or

Players say that they don't want the spell Forcecage to be used.
DM can ok the enemies never using Forcecage but neither can the players.

No matter what the vote has to be unanimously passed.

It has really worked well for us for years, we have done it for many systems.

[Marywn]

Also, I've never tried multiclassing. It's something I've always though of, but the things I wanted to try were either

Nonsensical
Not allowed
Constantly doubting wiether to multiclass

That being said, I do want to open up to trying full casters
Warlock is one I haven't tried, though it looks like alot of fun. Just don't piss off your patron.

[TheMoxiousOne]

No matter what the vote has to be unanimously passed.

It has really worked well for us for years, we have done it for many systems.

Agreed. The GM was a huge fan of a Sorcerer occasionally doing silly things with their 9th level spell slot that made them think harder and challenged their approach to creating any type of non-combat situation. Not overly broken, as you can't interact with other people, but a ton of hilarity out of a 9th level spell slot.

EDIT:


Warlock is one I haven't tried, though it looks like alot of fun. Just don't piss off your patron.

I would suggest Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, or Druid as your first full caster, due to ease of familiarity and the ability to get above 5th level spells. Warlock is fun, but has weird rules. Wizard has a ton of things they can do, and can be overwhelming. Just my two coppers, though

[dragoeniex]

Coming into 5e, which was also my first real tabletop RPG, I was overwhelmed by the spells chapter and section of the PHB. And also questions like, "Wait, what are all these numbers on the left of my page for again? How many checks can I give before I'm out?"

So I stayed away from casters for a while. My first character was a Battle Master, and the second a Thief.

First cast-ish character was a GOO warlock I only got to play for a few sessions, but it was a nice magical ice-breaker.

Started playing a bard a year ago and still am. Coming into full caster was jarring at first- especially since we started lv 5 and I was rapidly dropping weapons and instruments trying to figure out what to use how- but it's become my preferred play style. I like finding fun uses for spells out of combat, and I love the strategy of figuring out what to use in combat.

I'm prepping a wizard character for later now. The mechanics don't scare me, but the "choosing each day between spells you already chose once" aspect is going to feel less than wand-erful.

If you're thinking strictly wizard or sorcerer, I'd say sorcerer is probably going to be less moving pieces to juggle for your first. You have more spell "depth" and can pull additional tricks with the limited spells you do know, while wizards have more "breadth" and can learn a metric ton.

Personally, I'd lean wizard if you want utility and niche spells to play with in addition to the show-stoppers. If you're okay with a smaller selection, sorcerer will be easier.

[Guy Lombard-O]

What were the costs you were seeing for scrolls and what kind of loot were you getting per adventure? One campaign we are in the DM is trying to control our power so we aren't seeing much loot.

I should clarify: there were some scrolls available, just not of any spells I thought were worth the money, and not anything I was actively trying to find (like somehow getting my old spells back once my book was gone). The prices were probably exactly normal, but they were way more than I could afford for a spell I basically didn't want. It just seemed like I was always running out of money (spent some on learning language in downtime, material components, etc.). Meanwhile, the other characters had basically nothing they wanted/needed, and were saving up for buying uncommon magic items.

Maybe I was just expecting too much from the wizard. But I found it much less fun than a cleric or a bard.

[dragoeniex]

Also, I've never tried multiclassing. It's something I've always though of, but the things I wanted to try were either

Nonsensical
Not allowed
Constantly doubting wiether to multiclass

That being said, I do want to open up to trying full casters
Warlock is one I haven't tried, though it looks like alot of fun. Just don't piss off your patron.

Grain of salt here (re: have only played a handful of sessions as one), but warlocks feel more like 2/3 caster than full. You're definitely making heavy use of cantrips, invocations and the like- but most of your play is going to see you with fewer slots to play with unless your party stops frequently. So you may fall into a pattern of magic missile archery or bladelock gishing between bursts.

That's not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Warlocks have a lot of wonderful flavor and can feel pretty great to use. If you go tomelock, you can even get yourself some ritual casting.

But if you want to feel specifically like a full caster, you'll get more spell slot mileage elsewhere.

[jdolch]

You could play a "full spellcaster light" by combining a 17-18 Bard/Wizard/Sorcerer with 2-3 levels something else. (Or even combine Hexblade Warlock 2-3 and Sorcerer 17-18 into a melee capable full spell caster)

[Sigreid]

Counterpoint; the last (single-classed) Wizard I played was the party Tank from 2nd level onwards. High Con Abjurers have a butt-ton of effective AC/HP, even at low levels.

Yeah, I pumped my evoker's con over dex. I think he has as many hp as the fighter. Boy can take a hit and then it's his turn.

[Vexacia]

Full Spellcasting is required to fill a dedicated primary utility/support role.

If you'd like to hop onto a spellcaster, try setting up a character whose purpose in life is to help their friends as much as possible (through enabling allies and shutting down enemies) and eschew any personal glories (i.e. avoid dealing damage yourself unless there's literally nothing better to do, which will be the case somewhat often at low levels but will be the case quite rarely at high levels).

Wizard and Sorcerer are both really good at this. Wizards are incredibly flexible and versatile and in strong contest for the best generalist spellcaster. Sorcerer is much more rigid and inflexible, both due to a limited set of spells known and due to the need to relentlessly abuse metamagics like Twinned Spell to get the most out of playing a Sorcerer, but with clever metamagic usage you can do things Wizards mechanically cannot do (and doing those things is the only way to be competitive with a Wizard).

[Marywn]

Funny thing, In the 3 years I've been playing, I've never gotten to level 20 with any one character.

[Mr.Spastic]

Grain of salt here (re: have only played a handful of sessions as one), but warlocks feel more like 2/3 caster than full. You're definitely making heavy use of cantrips, invocations and the like- but most of your play is going to see you with fewer slots to play with unless your party stops frequently. So you may fall into a pattern of magic missile archery or bladelock gishing between bursts.

That's not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Warlocks have a lot of wonderful flavor and can feel pretty great to use. If you go tomelock, you can even get yourself some ritual casting.

But if you want to feel specifically like a full caster, you'll get more spell slot mileage elsewhere.

You would be correct in that statement. Warlocks can't be very accurately described as a full caster, but you outlined the reasons to play them yourself so I think you get it. I will say that it is a little misleading to because people see that they get spells at level 1 and immediately think full caster. They basically don't fit any defined rolls, which is they can be fun to play.