PDA

View Full Version : [3e] Do You Actually Play Non-Casters?



Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-17, 08:31 AM
One of the great things about 3e is that it lets you make just about any kind of [anti]hero you want. If you want to kill bad guys with tea cups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx1XhlPIeEM), there's a build for that. If you want to do that while bouncing around like Tigger in an anime on crack, there's a build for that too.

But most posters here know that non-casters are limited from the get-go, at least compared to full casters. So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs? Or do you leave the lower tier classes for the casual players who just want to roll the d20 and a damage die? And, whatever your answer may be, why?

Soranar
2010-07-17, 08:41 AM
Rule of fun mostly

Not being able to curbstomp every encounter, actually being afraid of death is why the game is fun for me.

It's like comparing superman and spider-man: a bus is a legitimate threat to spider-man (or a gun, or a knife , or nearly anything really) while superman requires plots created specifically to counter him.

Kyrthain
2010-07-17, 08:42 AM
I'm somewhat of an optimizer, but I never play casters. The reason is, I'm really stingy with my per-day resources, so instead of rocking out as a wizard, I'd be a sucky archer most of the day, and then when it was clear that we'd hit the boss fight, I'd unload. Because of that, I like martial classes, especially TOB, and warlocks, binders and the like a lot better.

Kish
2010-07-17, 08:45 AM
Yes, I sometimes play non-casters. Worrying about "theoretical optimization" is excellent advice for not having fun.

2xMachina
2010-07-17, 08:46 AM
Well, I can be called a powergamer/optimizer.

I usually do Tier 3. Tier 2 sometimes. Tier 1 is very rare (mostly because casters are a lot of work).

Lord Loss
2010-07-17, 08:48 AM
I have never played a non- DN caster. I usually play rogues, rangers and sometimes Barbarians.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-17, 08:48 AM
I play more noncasters than casters, mostly because spell management can be pretty tedious if you don't want to always use the same spells. Also, I thoroughly enjoy hitting things with sticks and being the guy in danger of being stomped on. Casters can be fun sometimes, too.

Yuki Akuma
2010-07-17, 08:51 AM
I play ToB characters and Binders all the time.

Sucrose
2010-07-17, 08:55 AM
One of the great things about 3e is that it lets you make just about any kind of [anti]hero you want. If you want to kill bad guys with tea cups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx1XhlPIeEM), there's a build for that. If you want to do that while bouncing around like Tigger in an anime on crack, there's a build for that too.

But most posters here know that non-casters are limited from the get-go, at least compared to full casters. So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs? Or do you leave the lower tier classes for the casual players who just want to roll the d20 and a damage die? And, whatever your answer may be, why?

I play far more noncasters than casters, because, frankly, I like the aesthetic of 'I hits the peoples and makes them fall down.' Hitting someone with a sword is inherently more awesome to me than blasting them with magic, or putting them to sleep, or whatever.

Also, I dislike the bookkeeping necessary to play a prepared caster properly, and don't like having Charisma as my primary stat (thus removing the option of most spontaneous casters). However, I also dislike just having a set number of feats, and the same options every round. I particularly like the Warblade for this, because, to me, it strikes the perfect balance of having resources to expend, and keeping things simple. The other ToB character classes are also useful.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-17, 09:06 AM
Although I prefer casters, I would certainly play (and have played) a rogue. Possibly a ranger, too, maybe a barbarian. It's just fighters and monks that are so bland, imho.

I've never played with a DM who allowed TOB, so I can't comment on that.

Dragon Elite
2010-07-17, 09:12 AM
I play rogues, and fighters occasionally.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-17, 09:16 AM
I mostly play Anima Mages without the early entry cheats. So, not usually, but I don't play characters who are casters all the way.

Volthawk
2010-07-17, 09:16 AM
Yeah, I do. Thinking about it, I do generally lean towards the casterish stuff, but I do enjoy non-casters, especially as you can go for some funny concepts. Like kobold barbarians.

awa
2010-07-17, 09:16 AM
I love rangers rarely straight ranger but all my recent characters have had at least a couple ranger levels.

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-17, 09:20 AM
Yes, I do. My favorite are melee warriors. Yes, I know they suck. I don't really care. I have more fun with them.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-07-17, 09:23 AM
I prefer casters to non-casters, heavily favoring psions and wizards. I also like me a beguiler from time to time. I'm starting to get into divine casters, but prefer arcane and psionic more.

If I'm going to play a non-caster, I usually bust out Tome of Battle or Incarnum.

Zen Master
2010-07-17, 09:35 AM
I play melee almost exclusively. Not carrying a big weapon, not going toe-to-toe with the enemy - that just feels unfun to me. I really like being the guy the others have to keep going, because I both give and take a whole lot of damage.

Luckily, no one I play with goes batman much. It has yet to happen that melee isn't powerful.

Morph Bark
2010-07-17, 09:36 AM
My only character to die in a non-awesome non-funny way was the only full caster I have ever played. Sure, he had a lot of options, but it was a chore to keep up with the spells known and per day and which one to use on a particular day, so I ended up with a few crowd control, a few utility, a few buff, but still mainly blasting spells since I wasn't aware of a lot of things about casters back then.

Heck, the only other character to die in that campaign got mauled and eaten by a massive shark, whilst my character just got knocked down by a Nycaloth. Since then I decided to play characters that have bigger chances of awesome deaths, but if I were to play in a larger party, I'd probably play a caster again, since more bases would be already covered.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-07-17, 09:39 AM
So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs?

I ususally do, yes. Namely because my favorite class is one of those.

Bharg
2010-07-17, 09:44 AM
Why play a non-caster if they just can't do as much stuff as a caster?

Volthawk
2010-07-17, 09:49 AM
Why play a non-caster if they just can't do as much stuff as a caster?

It's not about being the best or doing the most. It's about enjoying yourself, and if that enjoyment comes in playing a non-caster for people, then that's a valid reason. Same with people who prefer casters.

mrcarter11
2010-07-17, 09:50 AM
I know a fair bit about optimizing, and I've never played a full caster.. Seems like it would be boring, which is the anti-point of playing dnd. I like binders and swordsages.. And, since you ask us, I am curious as to the OP's stance towards playing a full caster or not. By his wording, I'm gonna guess he only plays full casters, but still curious.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2010-07-17, 10:08 AM
I prefer to play the 'stabby face' melee character. If I were ever to play a full caster as per "the batman wizard", I would get bored after the 4th grease spell, or the 'oh Gods I failed an SR check' and the 'oh i cast fly to scurry my 45HP arse outta combat'. That to me is so boring, it borders on tears.

However, this does come from experience. I played an actual cleric/necromancer/mystic theurge (yes, I heard the collective groan) for about a dozen meetings. All the paperwork, extra research, and book keeping just annoyed me. Near the end I was not having fun whatsoever, so the character took his fire giant skeleton and left the party to "find his fathers grave".

On the flip-side of that, I played a fey sorcerer/stormcaster and she was a ton of fun. In the beginning, she had a lot of good spells that were geared towards crowd control, and protection. eventually though, I had her learn some spells that were more melee oriented; such as Thunderlance (Sp. Comp.) and some of the generic shapechange stuff so that I can get into something's face and shred it. Eventually she did go epic; and at level 22 she started taking Swordsage levels. I don't care much for epic spellcasting.

Kylarra
2010-07-17, 10:13 AM
I've only played a noncaster once, although I really want to play a DFA in a group at some point, though I guess it would technically be a "caster"?

Pablo Sheraton
2010-07-17, 10:15 AM
I love to play Druid, but I play them because they are both spellcasters and RAWRNOFACE4U!!1! I also like gishes, for this reason. If I had to make a choice between a full caster casting as a caster, or a barbarian, I'd take Hulk any day.

Optimystik
2010-07-17, 10:15 AM
I only like melee that can "do things." Binders for instance, or Psychic Warriors, or Pyrokineticists, or Tattooed Monks. Anything besides "I attack" and "I full attack."

I know that I'd love ToB (Especially Setting Sun and Diamond Mind) but I haven't gotten around to actually playing one of their classes yet, despite having the book for awhile now.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-17, 10:23 AM
I like gish builds. . .i'll somtimes play a sorcerer, but I usually handicap them greatly by playing the battle sorcerer variant. . . had a great scout/dervish build once.

thompur
2010-07-17, 10:26 AM
I mainly played Fighters and Rogues, and occasionally Bards, because I hated the resource management required by full casters. Then came the Warlock! This became my favorite class very quickly. Then I got Tome of Magic and fell in love with the Binder class. At first, Tome of Battle was iffy. Then I played a Warblade! Aawwssoommee!

Jarveiyan
2010-07-17, 10:27 AM
I like playing archers mainly, and sometimes melee non-casters when I don't play a caster. It's because when I'm not in the mood to play a caster I want to play a character that hits creatures and kill them using hit point damage. I gain satisfaction from doing harm to monsters, which is why even if I'm playing a caster I have at least a few damaging spells(evocation on average). I usually reach for rangers or fighters when playing martial characters, or psychic warriors/pyrokineticist.

Felyndiira
2010-07-17, 10:30 AM
I only like melee that can "do things." Binders for instance, or Psychic Warriors, or Pyrokineticists, or Tattooed Monks. Anything besides "I attack" and "I full attack."

I know that I'd love ToB (Especially Setting Sun and Diamond Mind) but I haven't gotten around to actually playing one of their classes yet, despite having the book for awhile now.

This.

I do like melee with options, although most fighters and rogues are one-trick ponies both inside and outside of battle. I'd be perfectly willing to play a factotum (granted, they're sorta casters, but meh), ToB classes, binders, and those classes with some bit of battlefield control or utility regardless of tier.

I won't ever play a straight-out-of-the-book fighter, though. I might be willing if Martial Study/Stance is allowed, although they still have too few options in battle (I'd probably just end up spamming white raven tactics a few times before going back to leap power attack, though, so it's not an improvement).

This, of course, is contingent on how much of the roleplay is combat and how much is actual roleplaying, and on the interests of the other players. I am perfectly and fully willing to play a fallen paladin, non-blackguard on RP-focused games with tolerant party members.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-17, 10:34 AM
Oddly enough, I started my D&D career with wizards and druids, and am now playing rogues and fighters almost exclusively.

I perfer rolling a d20 and damage.

Eldariel
2010-07-17, 10:34 AM
I play Warblades, Swordsages (Unarmed and otherwise), Crusaders, Factotums, Rogues (though mostly as dips for Swordsages as I like maneuvers, though primary Rogue with some SS works too), (Sublime Way) Rangers, (Sublime Way) Marshal and, of course, various Gish multiclasses.


Simply sometimes, I wanna be the non-magical badass that gets along in the world of mages with another kind of power. And I like bows. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=642.00) Also, skills are one of my favorite parts of the game and non-casters tend to largely have more points and larger lists than many casters.

And ToB is just fun, and actually does some things magic cannot do easily (like remove anti-magic fields and grant allies extra actions), on low levels even. And yeah, sometimes I have a character concept that simply doesn't want magic. Distinct from the former, I'll simply roll with it then. It works fine.

Terazul
2010-07-17, 10:44 AM
Mostly gishes or as Mystik put it, "melee that do things". Binders, Warlocks, Binder/Warlocks, ToB Stuff, some Incarnum here or there, Psychic Warriors, Marksmen, etc. The occasional Psion or Sorc in there, though it's usually less for the power and more for the fun; Like a force missile mage who just shoots magic missiles through revolvers. Because it's neat.

Tedesche
2010-07-17, 10:47 AM
I prefer arcane characters of any type, but I'm actually kind of turned off by the whole idea of spell slots and per-day spells. The idea of "memorizing" a spell always seemed rather stupid and hokey to me, and despite the wizard's clear advantage of versatility, the memorization thing and the spellbook **** always makes me extremely averse to playing them. So, when I do play arcane casters, I prefer to play sorcerers. I've really wanted to give a beguiler a try, but haven't had the chance.

I also have a penchant for warlocks and binders, although I find those two classes are so limited that there's only so much optimization you can really do with them. Particularly warlocks. I've always felt that warlocks need a larger list of invocations to choose from, and that the vestige list could use some expansion as well. Wizards and sorcerers gain more options with practically every splat book you add in, while these two pretty much just remain lame.

As for non-arcanists, I've been tempted to play a druid before, but never actually done it. I've played the odd rogue or two, but never really had at that class the way I wanted to (REALLY high Int). In general, I don't go for melee types (*yawn*).

AvatarZero
2010-07-17, 11:21 AM
In the first game of tabletop DnD I ever played I decided to play an Arcane Archer, mainly because I liked the picture. We were starting at level 4 so I looked at the requirements, lots of feats and first level spells, and I decided to play an Elf Fighter 4 and pick up a level in wizard or sorcerer later. My elf had great stats, he was dashing and heroic, skilled with his bow and able to switch to a rapier when needed, and every single combat round involved four two-or-three minute installments of "Oh, let's see, which of my many options should I use this round?" and me saying "I attack." and rolling a d20 and a d8.

Never made that mistake again.

The first game of non-tabletop DnD I ever played was Neverwinter Nights. I have tried to recreate my PC from that game, a Rogue/Wizard, in every RPG session and system I've played since.

Non-casters suck. Objectively. :)

Optimystik
2010-07-17, 11:23 AM
I prefer arcane characters of any type, but I'm actually kind of turned off by the whole idea of spell slots and per-day spells. The idea of "memorizing" a spell always seemed rather stupid and hokey to me, and despite the wizard's clear advantage of versatility, the memorization thing and the spellbook **** always makes me extremely averse to playing them.

***

As for non-arcanists, I've been tempted to play a druid before, but never actually done it. I've played the odd rogue or two, but never really had at that class the way I wanted to (REALLY high Int). In general, I don't go for melee types (*yawn*).

Have you given Psions a try? They seem to be exactly what you want - no slots or x/day limits, just power points you can allocate as you desire, and Int-focused.

Morty
2010-07-17, 11:28 AM
I don't really play D&D that much anymore, but I've never had any problem with playing non-casters. In the two PbP games right now, I'm playing a single-classed fighter, albeit it's a homebrewed version of the class, and a warmage, who, while he casts spells, can hardly be compared to wizards and clerics. I do prefer playing wizard types, but it has nothing to do with power. If anything, the wizard's clear brokenness has turned me away from the class and caster-types in general.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-17, 11:41 AM
Not recently, but I DM far more than I play these days. That and the fact I have a preference for casters that long pre-dates 3.x!

I have a few character ideas on the back burner; Soul Knife/Psywar, maybe warblade/psywar or all three...mainly because I've haven't really got to use any Adepts since we adopted ToB aside from as NPCs. I played a Cleric and a Wizard in the one 4E game we've played sofar, on the basis that if clerics had lasers, I'd be damned if I didn't have one.

The only other character I've been playing in the last year or so is a Cleric/Monk reflavoured into a Naruto-style shinobi (as I stupidly offered to be the heal-guy; out-of-combat though that is). My next actual character is an Archivist (ditto). Generally we try so that everyone has a "turn" at being cleric (or equivalent thereof), and everyone else has been working their way through different characters is games I've been running. (And my other two last 3.x characters were a sorcerer and a Necromancer/Pale Master; though I ended up using a dagger-specialised fighter/ranger at the same time as the last one.)

Anyway, given a bit more chance to play new characters, I'd certainly play a noncaster again. Though probably not a fighter for a good while! Not because they suck - at the peculiar paradigm we use they aren't too bad with the boost we've given 'em, but having been using fighters - and clerics, oh crap the clerics - in my last umpteen-twiddly adventurers, I just can't face it! So, warblade or soulknife and/or maybe some psywar; because the last psywar I played was awesome.

(Actually the reason I'm playing an Archivist is because once I realised I'd rather idiotically volenteered to be cleric-guy again, it occurred to be between Shikue (the aforemention Cleric/Monk) and the DMing I am totally cleric'd out and I really needed something different! I looked at Spirit Shaman and Favoured Soul, but I remembered archivist - something I'd not looked nearly hard enough at before and went "Wow, how have I missed that one!")

Lhurgyof
2010-07-17, 11:46 AM
Oh course! It makes for fun roleplaying. Hell, I love to play monks, even though they're low-tiered.

molten_dragon
2010-07-17, 11:48 AM
I'm a powergamer, but I'll play any class. I pick something that sounds like fun, and then min/max as best I'm able with the resources available to me.

FMArthur
2010-07-17, 11:49 AM
If I play a caster it's to do something silly, not to be powerful. I am the sole optimizer of the last three groups I've been a part of, so I can generally have a good time doing any stupid build I think of without dragging the party down. The last 'proper' wizard I made would summon a beast at the start of combat then sit down and read for the rest of it, because he could have shut down every fight if he cast some of the spells I gave him. In absolute emergencies he was an infallible trump card, which the DM may not have appreciated.

So I usually come up with some terribly inefficient mode of combat then build the character that can do it best. Occasionally they still outshine the rest of the party but not by so much that anything is ruined.

mucat
2010-07-17, 11:55 AM
Actually, I do usually play casters, because they are my favorite classes from a roleplaying standpoint. The fact that they're so damned powerful in 3.5ed is a net negative; it means I have to intentionally hold the character back, to keep him/her from being more powerful than the non-casters.

In fact, I gravitate toward DMs who tone down casters heavily via house rules. That way, I can play my eccentric scholar/nature-loving ur-hippie/mad inventer without the whole "I win because I'm Tier 1" dynamic.

Malificus
2010-07-17, 12:03 PM
I play monks and mid to low tier classes.

The only caster I've played was a bard who was going lich.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-17, 12:03 PM
I'm a sucker for a skillmonkey, so it's rogues, factotums, & bards for me. Casters are alright, but skill checks & damage dice are wear it's at, IMO. YMMV.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-17, 12:22 PM
I mostly stick to Tiers 4-5: Rogues, Monks, Fighters, the occasional Ranger. I might dip 1 level of Cloistered Cleric for the domains.

Basically the game is just too easy if I play Tier 3 and above. I enjoy a challenge.

Maeglin_Dubh
2010-07-17, 12:30 PM
I'm a martial player. I avoid ToB because it makes me feel like I'm playing a caster, rather than stabbing things.

I run a combat re-enactment unit, and I've studied medieval western martial arts, so I much prefer to recreate that sort of feel in my roleplaying.

That and casters take too much work.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-17, 12:41 PM
Simply sometimes, I wanna be the non-magical badass that gets along in the world of mages with another kind of power. And I like bows. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=642.00) Also, skills are one of my favorite parts of the game and non-casters tend to largely have more points and larger lists than many casters.


BTW Eldariel, are you ever going to finish that handbook? It was going so well, but no class/PrC stuff makes me sad... :smallfrown:

Private-Prinny
2010-07-17, 12:48 PM
I always end up sticking to the same archetype whenever I make a character. Fortunately, it's Gishes, so I have plenty of room to maneuver. I'm actually trying to compile enough data to make a Gish Handbook.

arguskos
2010-07-17, 12:59 PM
I'm addicted to gishes, so kinda? Duskblade, Hexblade, Binder, these are my favorite classes.

I'm about to start a campaign where I'm playing War Machine (the Marvel comic character), so he's not really a caster of any flavor. I'm playing a Duskblade in another game, and an Archivist in a third. Guess it's a combination of casters and non.

Alleine
2010-07-17, 01:17 PM
Unfortunately, no. I play mostly casters. I have a tendency to want to balance out the party, because a group of four beatsticks is pretty much doomed from the get go when no one has any healing or range capabilities.

I don't do well as a caster though, I absolutely hate prepared casters and will tend not to ever change my spell lists because its more work than I care for. I can deal with spontaneous casters though, and my favorite character idea is a caster, but mostly because he has to be in order to qualify for what I want.

In a 4e game I'm playing a barbarian, and it is the most wonderfully refreshing change. All I have to do is pick how hard I'm going to hit the enemy.

Ajadea
2010-07-17, 01:33 PM
My characters tend to fall into 4 types: Skill-monkey, melee skirmisher, gish, or healer who actually heals stuff. If the divine spellcaster is doing what it should be (healing/buffing first, bashing second) as opposed to DMM Persist Divine Power, most of the broken-ness gets cut out fast.

Watching others do something amazing and just knowing that they couldn't do a single one of those things without you...well, that's actually pretty cool. So is being able to turn into a bear or cast an extended Divine Power and save the fighter's sorry -1 hp butt on those occasions in which I must.

If I do play casters, I tend to play spontaneous. I don't like having the perfect solution for everything. This is also why I play skill-monkey/skirmishers. I can do a lot. But there's no 'save-or-die' involved. Ever.

Remmirath
2010-07-17, 01:48 PM
I end up playing non-casters more than I play casters.

Fighters, barbarians and rogues most often. I don't really care about versatility, as I've found that (at least in all the campaigns I've played in) it has only theoretical potential. I prefer to have a character that does one thing well rather than doing a whole bunch of things less well.

I almost always end up playing core classes, just because I prefer them. Sometimes psionic classes.

I also enjoy playing sorcerers and wizards, but I don't end up doing it as often. I don't play crowd controlling/summoning types for the same reason I don't play clerics - I find it intensely boring to be 'the guy who helps the fighters out'. I'd rather be 'the guy who nukes most of the enemies before the fighters can get to them'.

The game I usually play in has quite a few house rules as well, both spoken and unspoken, so that does have some effect on what I play. Still, I've never yet had a problem with being underpowered playing a fighter in any other campaign.


I avoid ToB because it makes me feel like I'm playing a caster, rather than stabbing things.

That's the best summary of why I don't like ToB I've seen.

oxybe
2010-07-17, 03:00 PM
i've tried playing non-casters in 3rd ed but in all honesty i can't. i can only reflavor "full attack, full attack, charge" so many times before i start wanting something more varied, and stuff like grappling/tripping requires too much specialization or the GM allowances to be fun/useful most of the time.

the fact that most characters don't have the skill points to be varied in multiple things just emphasizes, for me at least, how much more versatile the spellcasters are.

while i'm not a big fan of vancian casting, i just prepare a few custom spell lists based on if i'm going in pure combat, explorating, talking to people/putzing around town, downtime, ect... and modify as the situation requires.

plus, most casters do have a "melee it up" feature if i do ever feel like it (polymorph for wizards, divine power for clerics, shapechange for druids. with summons available for all 3).

i just can't play a pure martial type in 3rd ed.

2xMachina
2010-07-17, 03:24 PM
i've tried playing non-casters in 3rd ed but in all honesty i can't. i can only reflavor "full attack, full attack, charge" so many times before i start wanting something more varied, and stuff like grappling/tripping requires too much specialization or the GM allowances to be fun/useful most of the time.

the fact that most characters don't have the skill points to be varied in multiple things just emphasizes, for me at least, how much more versatile the spellcasters are.

while i'm not a big fan of vancian casting, i just prepare a few custom spell lists based on if i'm going in pure combat, explorating, talking to people/putzing around town, downtime, ect... and modify as the situation requires.

plus, most casters do have a "melee it up" feature if i do ever feel like it (polymorph for wizards, divine power for clerics, shapechange for druids. with summons available for all 3).

i just can't play a pure martial type in 3rd ed.

You can try ToB.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-07-17, 03:26 PM
Though I enjoy playing casters, I generally like playing things built at about tier 3ish power best. ToB, Incarnum, and skillmonkies are great fun.

oxybe
2010-07-17, 03:49 PM
You can try ToB.

so i should use a book i don't own (or actually ever seen a physical copy of)?

i know where i could go to download a copy of it, but i don't have a laptop so digital books are all but useless to me, and going on amazon/ebay/etc... and getting a used copy wouldn't help much since the only 3.5 i play right now is a "pathfinder only" game, where the GM said no sourcebooks outside the the main book, the setting guide, the bestiary and the 2-3 paperback companion guides the GM has while we get used to the more minute changes in the system.

i know ToB is supposedly the book that fixes martial characters in 3.5, but i don't see myself coming into possession of it anytime soon, if at all.

balistafreak
2010-07-17, 03:56 PM
so i should use a book i don't own (or actually ever seen a physical copy of)?



While I for obvious reasons cannot endorse illegally downloading a copy, Warblade is free online, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) and I'm sure that someone else can feed you a manuever summary.

Kylarra
2010-07-17, 03:57 PM
While I for obvious reasons cannot endorse illegally downloading a copy, Warblade is free online, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2), and I'm sure that someone else can feed you a manuever summary.Ask and ye shall receive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a).

Superglucose
2010-07-17, 03:58 PM
But most posters here know that non-casters are limited from the get-go, at least compared to full casters. So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs? Or do you leave the lower tier classes for the casual players who just want to roll the d20 and a damage die? And, whatever your answer may be, why?
I played casters exclusively before and after I knew about char op. The fact that they're good is not why I play them... I seriously find the idea of "I attack and then move." Or occasionally "I move and then attack" to be ridiculous amounts of boring. It's the same reason I can barely tolerate playing a sorcerer... such limited options it drives me crazy.

The lowest tier class I have ever played is a Paladin, but now I wouldn't consider going below tier 3. Wildshape Ranger actually interests me, so that would be pretty much the only noncaster (well, that and Factotum) I'd be interested.

For me it's not about being powerful or even being useful in all situations. It's about being able to do more than one thing... even if I built a caster who's only purpose was combat, I would be able to have a few different ways to use that caster in combat. I could use Web for instance, or maybe this fight calls for Black Tentacles. Or maybe I need to help out the Rogue by Greasing the squares under the BBEG. Or maybe a Haste is in order... perhaps I should just end the fight by turning into two 7-headed Hydras? Maybe I should Alter Self into troglodyte form, grab a stick, and start pulling aggro? Or maybe today I just feel like blowing everyone up with a Fireball.

Or I could play a fighter... and hit the BBEG. Then do it again. And again. And now all of a sudden combat ceases to be more than "Ok, roll 1d20+x, if hit roll 2d6+x, ok next turn."

The solution is obviously Tome of Battle, but the only reason I don't use that more often is I can't find a hardcopy for less than $50 and I hate hate hate trying to read off PDFs. I tried ToB once, and I did really enjoy it, to an extent. I'll always prefer Druids and Wizards (my two favorite classes for exactly the reasons outlined: I have tons of options and if I want to I can always just say "screw it" and go melee the enemy to death with Polymorph or Wild Shape), of course, but I'll play ToB, Beguilers, Wildshape Rangers, or other things like that.



. I don't play crowd controlling/summoning types for the same reason I don't play clerics - I find it intensely boring to be 'the guy who helps the fighters out'. I'd rather be 'the guy who nukes most of the enemies before the fighters can get to them'.

We should play together, because I love being the CC guy. Most fun I ever had was playing a wizard very conservatively (like I typically do) with the whole party beginning to question why they brought me along. Color spray to end the encounter.

They figured it out when I managed to Web the BBEG, cause it to become nauseated, and also flatfooted thanks to a Grease spell. The GM figured it out too... this game is much easier when the enemy can't hit you and you can't miss him.

(The best part of that fight was one of my friends' boyfriend saying "Why aren't you at least shooting a crossbow" and I almost responded before my friend said, "He managed to elliminate the boss' AC and prevent her from attacking us at all, what have you done this fight?" The glowing feeling inside to know that the group that once laughed at my banning of Evocation was coming to understand just how integral I was to most fights!)

Nero24200
2010-07-17, 04:03 PM
I play quite a few casters mostly because I like having options. I don't mind having "weak" or even "poor" options, as long as I have them. Thus, whenever I play a non-caster I always try to find some way to open up my options.

For instance, the last time I played a fighter I loaded up on psionic combat feats. I could oly use one at a time, but that appealed to me quite a bit since it meant I used different feats at different times.

However the "having more options" mentality seems to favour casters. Having said that I don't play them for power. My main group isn't exactly high on the optimisation scale so I don't need to worry too much about keeping up in terms of power (though granted there have been a few times when I've had to take it up a notch). So I'll quite happily play non-casters as often as casters as long as I find some way to add in some options other than "I hit things".

Seatbelt
2010-07-17, 04:03 PM
I enjoy the idea of melee but like others have said I want options. In any given round I want there to be 2 or 3 different things I can do to hurt the enemy. So I prefer casters or partial casters.

Da Beast
2010-07-17, 04:04 PM
I prefer classes with lots of decent but not too powerful options. I like to have at least one good fight per play session, but otherwise thinking up a clever out of combat solution is almost always more fun than curb stomping the bad guys with a save or die or five trillion damage off a charge. I think bard, beguiler and psychic rogue all hit a very good balance of abilities in this regard, but I still mix it up with other classes from time to time.

SurlySeraph
2010-07-17, 04:31 PM
I mainly play non-mundane melee classes (i.e. ToB, paladins, gishes), since I find it most fun to focus on attacking but have some special options as well. When playing a full-caster I tend to agonize about whether my spell selection is good, whether I'm casting the right buffs, whether I've gotten my spell DCs high enough, etc. rather than actually having fun with it. I like to have enough options that I can almost always do something useful, but not so many that I start agonizing over whether I'm choosing the most effective one.

Plus I find dealing damage and debuffing more fun than dealing with battlefield control or summoning; when I do play full-casters, I prefer tossing around overly-metamagicked direct-damage spells, Enervation, and save-or-dies to anything that involves actual tactics.

I also find it a lot harder to come up with interesting character concepts for full casters.

Chronos Flame
2010-07-17, 04:52 PM
I usually play caster classes, but not for the reason of optimization. I just like casters more. My favorite character is an elven sorcerer who specializes in blasting. Now that I think of it I have never played a full non caster. I am playing a psywar now, but that to me is a partial caster. I do plan on playing a straight fighter soon though haha.

Octopus Jack
2010-07-17, 04:56 PM
I started off playing mostly mundane characters but I gradually went closer and closer towards magic, the more I understood it the more I wanted it. My favorite recent caster was a Mystic Theurge which had a large amount of book keeping but was worth it :smallbiggrin: one of my next characters is a transmution specilist core only wizard and for a gestalt campaign I'll be playing as a factotum//warlock.

I used to play noncasters, not so much anymore though

PId6
2010-07-17, 04:59 PM
I tend to play pretty much anything. My favorite 3.5 book is definitely ToB, but I've played/built characters of various classes and tiers. I usually prefer characters with a lot of capabilities, and I tend to optimize for versatility over power, but I've done that using classes like fighter and healer before. However, getting away from the one-trick pony mentality usually takes a lot more work and optimization for noncasters than it takes for casters, so typically the more the DM restricts sources, the more likely I am to play a higher tier class.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-17, 05:03 PM
Whether I'd like to play casters or non-casters is somewhat immaterial, since I've kind of been stuck as a caster regardless when playing with my RL group. Three games ago, I was the favored soul who kept everyone alive while they learned the rules; two games ago, I was the wizard who handled all the non-combat stuff; last game I started as a factotum but had to quickly head into chameleon because getting casting was the only way to circumvent the first-time DM's railroad plots that went absolutely nowhere (we politely asked him not to DM again).

When I can play online, my views echo those of several others in this thread. I like options, which melee tends to lack, and I like casters conceptually (fantasy = magic to me the same way sci-fi = technology), so that rules out most noncasters. Also, I very much prefer high-Int and high-Cha types, which only really works with casters and factotums, and you can only play so many factotums.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-07-17, 05:09 PM
I love casters. Before gaining knowledge on optimisation I'd play casters and skillmonkeys. After learning more I now like gishes. Other non-casters just don't interest me, at all. I usually hold back my power to avoid overshadowing my group, but I really like "I am not left-handed" type reveals so it doesn't bother me.

AslanCross
2010-07-17, 05:45 PM
I tend to play melee characters more, and they're usually a mix of core base classes + Tome of Battle. I actually don't enjoy the extreme bookkeeping of caster classes.

Superglucose
2010-07-17, 06:06 PM
See my favorite book is the PHB. They may be Tier 1 but Druid and Wizard are by far my favorite classes... fluff wise and crunch wise. Powerful, versatile, and in the case of Druid someone who's in tune with nature and in the case of Wizard, the nerd getting to rule the world.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-17, 06:16 PM
Even if by fluff, Druid is my fav class, I found Fighters and Rogues far more enjoyable.

Said this, the last PC I played was a Cleric, and time ago, because I always have to DM :smallbiggrin:

Acero
2010-07-17, 06:27 PM
Paladins all the way.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-17, 06:42 PM
I've been told that if I was a D&D character I'd be a wizard, and it is my favorite class. I do generally play wizard and other T1 classes since they have a ton of options right off the bat, and I love options. As long as I don't min max the character creation too much I don't overshadow the rest of the party, even if they're a bunch of fighters and monks. Speaking of which, there are some really good arcane buffs out there.

I'll play ToB and gish-style characters like a Psywar, Duskblade, or Totemist, but I'd balk at playing something with very few options, powerful or not, like a low int leap attacking Barbarian/FB, even though I started my D&D career playing dumb meat shields.

Grifthin
2010-07-17, 06:50 PM
I like Hybrid characters like Duskblades and "I blast you all day" characters like Warlocks. If I have to go PHB then Rangers are my go-to choice.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-17, 07:00 PM
All the time. I favor casters, but depending on my mood, I play literally anything down to about tier 4. Things below that tend not to be a lot of fun generally, but the rest depends on the campaign, the party, the level, and so forth.

Played barbarians and fighters quite a bit, and both are quite a lot of fun.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-17, 07:20 PM
I do play full casters occasionally, but usually when I it seems the best option for my stats (I play a couple tables a month that use 4d6B3 in order).

lightningcat
2010-07-17, 07:24 PM
As a general rule, I prefer Gishs, with melee and skillmonkeys coming in a close second place. But the idea of trying to play a batman wizard is boring to me, I've done that before, and had more fun not casting than I did casting.
But the character that I've had the most fun with, was a Envoker. Diplomacy through superior firepower, and most of that was directed at the rest of the party. Caster optimazation is more paperwork and effort than I want to put forth, so I usually take the easier blaster route, with a few buffs and summons to go with it. I want to play some of the other type of magic users, such as warlock, incarnum or binding, but haven't had the opportunity.

Morithias
2010-07-17, 10:41 PM
I take this up to 11. My most famous build at my table was a Merchant. No seriously using the DMG2 rules and everything. Needless to say the DM banned him instead of the wizard once he saw the 1.4 trillion monthly paycheck.

Kantolin
2010-07-18, 04:10 AM
My favorite classes are Fighters, Bards, and Psychic Warriors. ^_^ And hey, my current character is a Paladin / Halfling Goblin Outrider who has hardly any spells.

The less optimized your overall group is, the more fun fighters become as spreading yourself thin becomes less of a 'now you suck'.

Ossian
2010-07-18, 04:15 AM
I enjoy gray-guards (no spells) end and bards, but my classes of choice are described as soldiers. Fighters then, and Scouts, or Rangers, and of course the sweet "Dread Commando" all the way. Rogues, Monks and Ninjas are cool too.

Hida Reju
2010-07-18, 05:07 AM
Yes I play non casters but only in Gestalt.

One I had most fun with recently was Elf Dragon Shaman/Fighter that focused on Fear effects, Two handed power attack, and entanglement breath weapon. Played from lvl 5 to lvl 14 and had a blast. Since gear was nerfed due to story used the alternative class feature in Dragon magic for fighters for free heavy armor and energy resistances.

Another gestalt non caster was a simple Fighter/Rogue that I got to play in a one shot at lvl 14. It was stupid easy to damage things with the weapon augment crystals and some alternative class features for sneak attack.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-07-18, 08:30 AM
Interesting how most of the first page is "Heck yeah, I play non-casters." And then the responses become more mixed. I wonder if the first page would have been different if I had asked Do You Actually Play Casters? (Nevermind the similar thread going on right now. :smallsmile:)


I know a fair bit about optimizing, and I've never played a full caster.. Seems like it would be boring, which is the anti-point of playing dnd. I like binders and swordsages.. And, since you ask us, I am curious as to the OP's stance towards playing a full caster or not. By his wording, I'm gonna guess he only plays full casters, but still curious.
During my 3e career, I didn't play PCs much because 1) I had regular groups only for very short times and 2) I was usually the DM. When I did get to play, my most memorables were a cleric/wizard mystic theurge, a blaster sorcerer and a disarming fighter. I had a lot of character ideas, both caster and non-caster, but alas the time!

I now have a regular group that shares the GM seat with me, but we mostly play 4e so the issue is moot. 4e doesn't have non-casters; it has casters who use toys to cast and casters who use weapons to cast.

Malakar
2010-07-18, 11:13 AM
I have played a lot of things. But generally speaking I get bored, and I get bored of Fighters or Rogues after one character, maybe two or three depending on builds, and after only a relatively short period of time on that character, because they do the same thing.

On the other hand, I played probably 100 different Wizards/Druids/Clerics before I was so bored that I had to move on to homebrew classes to play something I haven't already played several times before.

Jyokage
2010-07-18, 11:50 AM
I almost always, play a multiclass monk. Every time. I did once play a fighter though. :-) I'm being completely serious here. I am quite the optimizer about it, but I have never played any caster. My answer to everything is, "Needs more punching."

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-18, 03:27 PM
Only quite rarely, although it's not for optimization reasons but sheer options. Non-casters just can't do stuff that's ridiculously awesome. They tend to be limited to hitting things, hitting them some more, or tripping/grappling/etc.

Environmental stuff is rarely anywhere near as helpful as it could be, either. Even when the fighter-type has the ability to affect their environment in some cool way, it usually involves high risk for low reward, while a caster can bend reality to their will and it always works.

Most important, casters can do stuff in any situation (especially int-casters). A warrior archetype is damn near useless outside of combat, since they get very few skill points and need to spend the vast majority of their feats on improving their fighting just to be decent. A rogue-type at least has their skills. But a mage or a psion, if they're not going to be in combat they can memorize or simply manifest non-combat abilities to help them, and their high intelligence means they probably have skill numbers that come close to the rogue's.

Similarly, I have a really hard time playing classes that have strictly limited spell selections and no way to expand that. Can't stand to be a specialist wizard, for example. No way would I ever play a sorcerer or other caster that can never know more spells than their list of spells known. Even a psion makes me twitch since there are limited ways to expand their powers known - but at least it's possible via psychic chirugery and such. Plus psychic reformation makes everything better. I want it so that if I run across an awesomely cool effect, I can go out and learn how to do that.

Yahzi
2010-07-18, 08:35 PM
I like hitting things until they fall down, too, which is why I always play a Cleric.

:smallsmile:

Earthwalker
2010-07-19, 06:39 AM
Well so far I have played a Rogue / Wizard and a Ranger / Cleric.
Both times I was thinking of playing non caster but then wanted to add in some options.

I like having skills, I find fighters very difficult as they just don't have the skills to make them enjoyable out of combat. In combat you are just hitting things.

In other systems I have played non casters, in 3.5 I seem to need some spells just to keep it interesting.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-19, 06:57 AM
.

Environmental stuff is rarely anywhere near as helpful as it could be, either. Even when the fighter-type has the ability to affect their environment in some cool way, it usually involves high risk for low reward, while a caster can bend reality to their will and it always works.


Fun fact: that is what make the true hero, IMO. And the PC more fun to play..

Frog Dragon
2010-07-19, 07:06 AM
I play skill types a lot, in addition to ToBby warriors of various styles. Psionics and sorcerers are something I also play sometimes. Wizard is rare and so is divine casting. Usually play neutral something. Usually chaotic.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-19, 10:35 AM
I have played noncasters, but I do prefer the variety casting brings to combat.

acid_ninja
2010-07-19, 10:45 AM
As a player:

Wizard: I hang back and make the floor slippery. *Goes back to eating Cheetos*

Melee: I'm down to just a few hit points left because I've been trading shots with this enemy, I really need this. *rolls dice as everyone hangs on the edge of their seat* Critical hit! Woooooooooooooooo!

Wizard: Huh? Sorry, I was flipping through 85 pages of stuff and trying to figure out how many times I'll need to dispel magic tomorrow. Did we win?

That's why I play melee

M0rdain
2010-07-19, 10:46 AM
I have always plaid Clerics or Paladins, More for the RP option of being Good. That and no one else wanted to be the healer lol.:smallsmile:

Il_Vec
2010-07-19, 10:48 AM
I do play noncasters, and for some reason having low BAB bugs me.

Ormur
2010-07-19, 10:59 AM
I can imagine playing skillmonkeys but I prefer having access to some magic.

Emmerask
2010-07-19, 11:03 AM
Yes, I find playing none casters far more exciting then casters.
Rogue, Monk (1-3 levels) , Psychic Warrior and Swordsage are my favorite "building blocks" for my characters.

Even if I play a caster I mostly play suboptimal hybrid casters like Arcane Trickster (without any early entry stuff), so in essence I un-optimize them to tier 3 :smallwink:

Ormagoden
2010-07-19, 11:11 AM
I'll play anything!

jiriku
2010-07-19, 11:42 AM
I always enjoy playing characters who use superior intelligence, speed, or tactics to win, rather than brute strength, so it's always casters and tricky characters for me. This is true in other games as well: I'll take Lin Shaiyu over Paul Phoenix any day when playing Tekken, for example.

This is pretty much just my personal style. I'm a pretty smart guy, IRL, but not very athletically skilled. I've never been able to relate to the hero who uses muscle and bone to solve his problems, but when the hero starts to use his head, I can get behind that.

Darkxarth
2010-07-19, 01:01 PM
I usually find myself playing half-casters and pseudo-casters.

Bards
Beguilers
Paladins
Rangers
Factotums

I am currently playing a level 2 Sorcerer in a Pathfinder game, so that's something new for me.

balistafreak
2010-07-19, 01:11 PM
I'll play anything!

Commoner. No, wait, Truenamer!

I kid, I kid. :smalltongue:

Dairun Cates
2010-07-19, 01:16 PM
I always enjoy playing characters who use superior intelligence, speed, or tactics to win, rather than brute strength, so it's always casters and tricky characters for me. This is true in other games as well: I'll take Lin Shaiyu over Paul Phoenix any day when playing Tekken, for example.

This is pretty much just my personal style. I'm a pretty smart guy, IRL, but not very athletically skilled. I've never been able to relate to the hero who uses muscle and bone to solve his problems, but when the hero starts to use his head, I can get behind that.

Amusingly enough, this is actually why I DISLIKE arcane casters in just about any system now, and why I tend to not play them. It occurred to me, somewhere along the line, that using your brain to project "ultimate arcane power and destroy your foes" was just another way of using brute strength. Sure, you're not hitting the person physically, but ultimately, you're still just trying to over power them, whether its save or suck spells, save or die, or just flying and shooting fireballs.

In reality, most wizard builds actually do only have a few tricks up their sleeves, they're just potent ones that work in a LOT of scenarios. Tactics is about adjusting to a constantly changing scenario, not applying the right trick for the job while everyone runs back-up.

It's one thing if you're using your ability to control fire to set the sprinklers off and put out the fire elemental, it's another thing if its just a matter of using the right spell for the job and having the foresight to bring it. Honestly, that just feels like brute force that's been flavored differently to me. I know some people will disagree (vehemently), but that's how I feel about it.

Think of it this way. The public opinion seems to be that Wizards are the big bad guy on the block. The Wizard is the guy you don't mess with. The Wizard is the guy that will mess you up, because The Wizard has all the power. The Wizard is smarter than your character, faster than your character, and better in every way if he wants to be. Like I said, that just sounds like a magical bully to me. I find it far more compelling to play the underdog in that case. It's about figuring out how to get that one hit to take The Wizard down. Whether it's the bard that uses his words, the rogue that uses his skills, or the fighter that uses a combination of tactical feats, having multiple plans, and just a bit of luck. That feels compelling, and that feels like the smart and agile hero.

Of course, I said Arcane Casters, because I actually like divine casters. They typically work well in teams and as support units. Arcane casters always come off as a bit "me me me" in the way they're supposed to be played, while the cleric and the bard actually focus on making everyone else do their thing better and longer.

Once again, I know some people are going to disagree with me and tell me that I'm missing the point, but that's honestly how it feels to me. I don't feel like I'm outsmarting my foes when I clearly have the upper hand.

Honestly, the way I talk about it, I probably should just play Shadowrun.




Oh, and for the record, I don't know what's up with the common belief that you need magic to have multiple options in combat. I ran a perfectly fine dwarven fighter in one campaign that was fully capable of switching from a high damage power attacking leap-attacking (no shock trooper, not out to cheese) critical hit fighter, to a reach weapon combat reflexes fighter, to a high AC tank fighter pretty rapidly. Add in a little bit of math on how much to power attack based on AC, average roll statistics vs. damage output, and I was actually do a lot more math a round than our wizard was, and all I had to sacrifice was having a 16 strength score at level 1 instead of an 18.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-19, 01:27 PM
Oh, and for the record, I don't know what's up with the common belief that you need magic to have multiple options in combat. I ran a perfectly fine dwarven fighter in one campaign that was fully capable of switching from a high damage power attacking leap-attacking (no shock trooper, not out to cheese) critical hit fighter, to a reach weapon combat reflexes fighter, to a high AC tank fighter pretty rapidly. Add in a little bit of math on how much to power attack based on AC, average roll statistics vs. damage output, and I was actually do a lot more math a round than our wizard was, and all I had to sacrifice was having a 16 strength score at level 1 instead of an 18.

...all of which involve hitting people and dealing damage or avoiding the same being done to you. The options being referred to are things like illusions and walls to split up and confuse enemies, summons to gang up on big foes, immobilizing spells like Evard's black tentacles and entangle to hold enemies in place, and so on.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-19, 01:43 PM
...all of which involve hitting people and dealing damage or avoiding the same being done to you. The options being referred to are things like illusions and walls to split up and confuse enemies, summons to gang up on big foes, immobilizing spells like Evard's black tentacles and entangle to hold enemies in place, and so on.

You'd be surprised what you can do with some good old damage rolls and hit dice when you're clever and bother with the math. Besides, I never said casters don't have options. They definitely do, I just find having really powerful options that have little chance of not working if you know what you're doing boring.

For instance, Evard's has the power to end quite a few fights by itself, but then that's it. It doesn't take a lot of work to know to prepare Evard's and when to use it. I PERSONALLY find that boring. Smart spell-casting really isn't that hard once you get the tricks down.

I just find it far more compelling as a character AND a gamer to put myself at somewhat of a disadvantage, and see how far I can go with it. It's more challenging to me. I've been fairly successful and happy with it too. No matter how weak of a character I've made, I've always managed to find my party niche.

The question was do I actually play non-casters. The answer is, not only do I, I typically prefer them and find them more fun. There's almost a freedom to not being optimized that allows you to think more out of the box.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-19, 01:58 PM
You'd be surprised what you can do with some good old damage rolls and hit dice when you're clever and bother with the math. Besides, I never said casters don't have options. They definitely do, I just find having really powerful options that have little chance of not working if you know what you're doing boring.

What I mean is that "hit people and deal damage" is considered to be a single option when discussing the relative options of different classes. If your fighter also had Improved Trip and Stand Still he'd have two options, "hit things for damage" and "stop enemies from moving." They aren't necessarily bad options, but they're still only two options, and those two options can't handle everything.


For instance, Evard's has the power to end quite a few fights by itself, but then that's it. It doesn't take a lot of work to know to prepare Evard's and when to use it. I PERSONALLY find that boring. Smart spell-casting really isn't that hard once you get the tricks down.

I just find it far more compelling as a character AND a gamer to put myself at somewhat of a disadvantage, and see how far I can go with it. It's more challenging to me. I've been fairly successful and happy with it too. No matter how weak of a character I've made, I've always managed to find my party niche.

The question was do I actually play non-casters. The answer is, not only do I, I typically prefer them and find them more fun. There's almost a freedom to not being optimized that allows you to think more out of the box.

Oh, there's a vast difference between having lots of options and having interesting tactics. You can certainly build a fighter that's fun to play, that contributes to the group, and that is more interesting tactically with the options it has than the group casters are; I never claimed that more options = more fun. I personally agree that it's often more fun to take a suboptimal concept of one sort or another and then do what I can with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have fewer options than a caster.

For instance, in my first post I mentioned that I had to become a utility caster because the DM was railroading us fairly heavily. We had assassins sent after us at one point that always ran away before we could capture and interrogate them, we faced golems with a greater teleport ability that would try to teleport us away to capture us, and so on. As a factotum, there wasn't much I could do against this sort of thing, since every time I managed to screw up his plans he'd find a way to negate that, and spending feats and gold on my countermeasures only to have them rendered useless wasn't going to work for me. As a chameleon, however, I could box assassins in with wall spells and immobilizers to stop them from running, use dimensional impediment spells to stop assassins from teleporting out or golems teleporting in, and so on.

Now, granted, this is a rare sort of situation, and one that will hopefully never happen again in our group, but the point stands that there are many scenarios that can't be solved by attack and damage rolls or high AC, as interesting as your tactics may be. That's where the options come in handy. That's the reason I like gishes, actually, since you can play as a tactical melee type most of the time if you wish but still have a few other options if you need them.

Malakar
2010-07-19, 02:03 PM
As a player:

Wizard: I hang back and make the floor slippery. *Goes back to eating Cheetos*

Melee: I'm down to just a few hit points left because I've been trading shots with this enemy, I really need this. *rolls dice as everyone hangs on the edge of their seat* Critical hit! Woooooooooooooooo!

Wizard: Huh? Sorry, I was flipping through 85 pages of stuff and trying to figure out how many times I'll need to dispel magic tomorrow. Did we win?

That's why I play melee

You know, deceptive phrasing and comparing unlike situations is not exclusive the non caster players.

Oh wait, yes it is.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-19, 02:10 PM
{Scrubbed}

JonestheSpy
2010-07-19, 02:21 PM
You know, deceptive phrasing and comparing unlike situations is not exclusive the non caster players.

Oh wait, yes it is.

As Yoda would say, break me a frickin' give.

Gametime
2010-07-19, 03:31 PM
Of course, I said Arcane Casters, because I actually like divine casters. They typically work well in teams and as support units. Arcane casters always come off as a bit "me me me" in the way they're supposed to be played, while the cleric and the bard actually focus on making everyone else do their thing better and longer.

Bards are arcane casters. And there's nothing wrong with a good ol' buffing wizard; in fact, it's one of the most effective ways to play, if you pick the right buff spells and have a good party to receive them.

I agree with a lot of your basic sentiment, re: having fun playing Supermen, but not every wizard has to be Superman.


As Yoda would say, break me a frickin' give.

I think "A freakin' break, give me" would be more accurate. :smalltongue:

Dairun Cates
2010-07-19, 06:10 PM
Bards are arcane casters. And there's nothing wrong with a good ol' buffing wizard; in fact, it's one of the most effective ways to play, if you pick the right buff spells and have a good party to receive them.

I agree with a lot of your basic sentiment, re: having fun playing Supermen, but not every wizard has to be Superman.

Ah right. Forgot that, and Druid's are Divine... Yeah. Mostly just meant offensive casters.

True enough on not being Superman, but even then, I still just prefer other classes. Go figure.

Optimystik
2010-07-19, 06:12 PM
Actually, Psionics is more the "me me me" style of casting. Though the Psion can say "if you want my buff so bad, pull it out of my head and cast it yourself."

Emmerask
2010-07-19, 07:29 PM
...all of which involve hitting people and dealing damage or avoiding the same being done to you. The options being referred to are things like illusions and walls to split up and confuse enemies, summons to gang up on big foes, immobilizing spells like Evard's black tentacles and entangle to hold enemies in place, and so on.

You mean like throwing marbles at the feet of your foes, or using a bottle of water to quench the last torch thereby plunging the room into darkness or using a throwing knife to cut the rope to the Chandelier which falls on some foes and creates a nice barrier?
You can do pretty nice things the nonmagical way, you only need to be imaginative :smallsmile:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-19, 07:39 PM
You mean like throwing marbles at the feet of your foes, or using a bottle of water to quench the last torch thereby plunging the room into darkness or using a throwing knife to cut the rope to the Chandelier which falls on some foes and creates a nice barrier?
You can do pretty nice things the nonmagical way, you only need to be imaginative :smallsmile:

None of those derive from your class; a monk or a truenamer can throw marbles just as easily as a wizard or cleric. Again, tactics are different from options; tactics are what you do with your options, and while any character can use excellent tactics regardless of class, that's not what the players who favor casters are talking about.

Masaioh
2010-07-19, 07:45 PM
I use homebrew martial classes that can give anything short of solar gate cheese a run for it's money. If I want to take out epic casters, I use the broken stuff. As a bonus, martial classes (usually) require less bookkeeping than casters. Wotc-only melee is either useless, boring, or both.

Also, I prefer gauging classes using Same Game Test rather than the Tier 1-6 system.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-19, 07:49 PM
Actually, Psionics is more the "me me me" style of casting. Though the Psion can say "if you want my buff so bad, pull it out of my head and cast it yourself."

+1. Psions make horrible team players in most cases, because almost all of their powers are self-only or Personal range. CPsi added a few exceptions, but not enough.

Personally, I've always wanted to play a high-level Wizard/Incantatrix/War Weaver. No matter how...traditional...your party is with regards to wizards throwing fireballs instead of BC/buffs, they'll have to sit up and take notice when you throw out a dozen or more all-day combat buffs on the entire party and double or triple your collective power/endurance.

Divine casters are more party-friendly out of the box, but a wizard designed to be a party-enabler (more God Wizard than Batman Wizard) is a force to be reckoned with; not only is he a wizard, but now he's a wizard with massively enhanced allies who actually have a motivation to help protect him.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-19, 08:56 PM
You mean like throwing marbles at the feet of your foes, or using a bottle of water to quench the last torch thereby plunging the room into darkness or using a throwing knife to cut the rope to the Chandelier which falls on some foes and creates a nice barrier?
You can do pretty nice things the nonmagical way, you only need to be imaginative :smallsmile:
No. You need to be imaginative AND then have the DM agree that it's possible, AND have the DM set a DC that's not too high, AND have the DM agree that it will be effective enough that it's worth using an action on. Very often one of those isn't going to happen.

Or you can cast Grease, or Darkness, or Wall of Force, to create a completely reliable slippery area on the ground, dark room, or barrier.

Gametime
2010-07-19, 09:52 PM
No. You need to be imaginative AND then have the DM agree that it's possible, AND have the DM set a DC that's not too high, AND have the DM agree that it will be effective enough that it's worth using an action on. Very often one of those isn't going to happen.

Or you can cast Grease, or Darkness, or Wall of Force, to create a completely reliable slippery area on the ground, dark room, or barrier.

The marbles one, at least, is actually an item in the Arms and Equipment Guide. 3.0, but pretty likely to get allowed, if you really want it.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-19, 10:13 PM
No. You need to be imaginative AND then have the DM agree that it's possible, AND have the DM set a DC that's not too high, AND have the DM agree that it will be effective enough that it's worth using an action on. Very often one of those isn't going to happen.

Or you can cast Grease, or Darkness, or Wall of Force, to create a completely reliable slippery area on the ground, dark room, or barrier.

Which is why it's much less fun to play a wizard.
Why bother playing the game if you can't be stopped?
The point was, it's much more special to actually accomplish it the hard when then saying "I cast x".
Spell types can be quite fun, but I like melee types/half-casters more.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-19, 10:26 PM
Which is why it's much less fun to play a wizard.
Why bother playing the game if you can't be stopped?
The point was, it's much more special to actually accomplish it the hard when then saying "I cast x".
Spell types can be quite fun, but I like melee types/half-casters more.

Well, there's a difference between "doing things the hard way" and "doing things that aren't actually covered in the rules." If you're trying to send a chandelier crashing down on someone, one DM might rule that cutting the rope is automatic with a successful melee attack and people underneath take 3d6 piercing damage, another might rule that the rope has 15 HP and creatures underneath take 1d6 bludgeoning damage, and another might rule that you need to use Use Rope to undo it and anything underneath is crushed to death instantly...while for the wizard, entangle is entangle is entangle.

Gametime
2010-07-19, 10:31 PM
There's something to be said for the idea that a lack of explicit options encourages creativity and diversity of action.

On the other hand, a lot of players won't do things that aren't explicitly given as options. There really isn't any one right answer to the question "How many options are enough and how many are too many?"

Lhurgyof
2010-07-19, 10:35 PM
Well, there's a difference between "doing things the hard way" and "doing things that aren't actually covered in the rules." If you're trying to send a chandelier crashing down on someone, one DM might rule that cutting the rope is automatic with a successful melee attack and people underneath take 3d6 piercing damage, another might rule that the rope has 15 HP and creatures underneath take 1d6 bludgeoning damage, and another might rule that you need to use Use Rope to undo it and anything underneath is crushed to death instantly...while for the wizard, entangle is entangle is entangle.

Indeed, but there's one thing that's for sure: Doing it the hard way would be a lot more fun than casting entangle on them, unless you found some interesting way to utilize said spell. It's really up to the player. xD

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-19, 10:46 PM
There's something to be said for the idea that a lack of explicit options encourages creativity and diversity of action.

That only really works if you have consistency among DMs. In one game, it's great to improvise, because the DM says "That's a cool idea, I'll help you do it" and in another it sucks because the DM says "It's not in the rules, so you take a lot of penalties." It's great to take advantage of those sorts of tactics under the right sort of DM, but you can't count on them to the extent that you can say any given martial character will be more creative/fun/whatever than any given wizard due to them. The whole argument that in some situations under some DM's it's possible that some situational tactics might be effective and therefore casters are taking the cheap/easy/boring way out is, I find, misguided at best; if you have a lenient DM, great, but "Doing things the hard way works under my DM" doesn't generalize to "Doing things the hard way works in general."

Lhurgyof
2010-07-19, 10:56 PM
That only really works if you have consistency among DMs. In one game, it's great to improvise, because the DM says "That's a cool idea, I'll help you do it" and in another it sucks because the DM says "It's not in the rules, so you take a lot of penalties." It's great to take advantage of those sorts of tactics under the right sort of DM, but you can't count on them to the extent that you can say any given martial character will be more creative/fun/whatever than any given wizard due to them. The whole argument that in some situations under some DM's it's possible that some situational tactics might be effective and therefore casters are taking the cheap/easy/boring way out is, I find, misguided at best; if you have a lenient DM, great, but "Doing things the hard way works under my DM" doesn't generalize to "Doing things the hard way works in general."

I guess that's true.

Mnemnosyne
2010-07-19, 11:23 PM
That only really works if you have consistency among DMs. In one game, it's great to improvise, because the DM says "That's a cool idea, I'll help you do it" and in another it sucks because the DM says "It's not in the rules, so you take a lot of penalties." It's great to take advantage of those sorts of tactics under the right sort of DM, but you can't count on them to the extent that you can say any given martial character will be more creative/fun/whatever than any given wizard due to them. The whole argument that in some situations under some DM's it's possible that some situational tactics might be effective and therefore casters are taking the cheap/easy/boring way out is, I find, misguided at best; if you have a lenient DM, great, but "Doing things the hard way works under my DM" doesn't generalize to "Doing things the hard way works in general."

Yeah, this. Plus, even if you have the kind of DM that lets you get creative without throwing huge penalties because it's not explicitly covered in the rules...you can get more creative with spells.

The humble Cantrip has ever been a spell that, with a DM that encourages creativity, it's uses are infinite, while with one that doesn't, it's not worth memorizing. And no matter how creative one gets with a Fighter, he's never going to be able to do the cool, quirky, weird things a caster can do.

I suppose I see the interest in playing something highly limited, I just find more fun in being able to come up with some ridiculous concept, and then actually being able to pull it off because I have all the magic needed to do it.

devinkowalczyk
2010-07-19, 11:49 PM
Favorite character I played in a Nitsche game (min +4 lvl mod)


Werebear Minotaur

64 strength
rawr


I did more damage then the casters did

Serpentine
2010-07-20, 05:07 AM
I think I've only played a spellcaster once, and that was very unoptimised (split-personalitied element-based Sorceress - her personality changed each day, each one being based on an element, the spells available themselves relating to each element. It was interesting to see how different her strength was each day...). My first was a Ranger/Wildrunner, but even those spells were mostly neglected. My "main", a straight Ranger, is an unmagic variant (and I don't really like this version because it has some magic-like abilities). My most recent character is a Ranger/Variant Scout, but what few spells it gets I've refluffed as more like "meditations" or "states of mind".

So, not really. The main reason is pretty much just that I go with ideas, with what inspires me, and so far all my ideas have been non-magical. I have an idea for a spy-Wizard in the works, and I would like to play a Druid at some point. I'm not sure why I haven't played the latter, yet - seems like it should be right up my alley. It's possible that all the "it are uber!" hype has put me off.

Clepto
2010-07-20, 12:57 PM
Spellcasters are fun, but I generally only play casters that blow things up. While intellectually I understand how good the more versatile spells are, I tend to get lured by the promise of rolling lots of dice.

In the current campaign I'm in, my current character is the longest lived, clocking in at four sessions so far, and he's a druid/warshaper/master of many forms (no, I'm not building Pun Pun). The party is involved in an attempt to find the "Ogre King" (actually, a human who found one of the Rods of Dominion, and just started bossing Ogres around to destroy the human kingdom out of spite), and the Ogre King is actually me (DM's idea, not mine), but nobody knows because I'm never in my normal form. Ever. And even when I am, I'm still wearing a Hat of Disguise. Usually I end up as the party's face, and in combat I pick an interesting form that fits the situation and roll with it. I only have druid levels to have access to Wild Shape. But I'm digressing.

The character before this one was a Mind Blade/Master Thrower. The one before that was a Swashbuckler/Fighter/Duelist. Before that, Scout/Fighter archery specialist. You get the idea. I love non casters. Especially in a world where casters can have it so much easier late-game than others, I get a lot of satisfaction out of making a non-caster that can keep up with the rest of the party, though admittedly the rest of the party doesn't optimize.

In fact, the last time I played a full caster, it was a straight Warmage, but that doesn't really count, since he basically only existed to cast Scorching Ray at every opportunity.

Volthawk
2010-07-20, 01:09 PM
I only have druid levels to have access to Wild Shape. But I'm digressing.


Guess you didn't see this ranger variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger), then.

Temotei
2010-07-20, 01:24 PM
Right now, I'm playing a bard. Before a few games dropped off, I was playing a warmage (with a fair amount of melee prowess), a debaser (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7624907&postcount=1), an earthshaker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8095123&postcount=1), and a rogue, as well.

So...about half of my characters have casting, but very few get 9th-level spells.

Stompy
2010-07-20, 02:23 PM
So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs?

Answer: I usually play Tier 3 and higher stuff.
Rationale: I usually play with people who play optimized wizards and such. >.>

Exil3dbyrd
2010-07-20, 02:37 PM
I very rarely play a single class when I play. When I choose a character to play at the start of a campaign, I try to think of a playstyle/personality that would be fun to do. Maybe a super fast dual-weilder, or a steampunk scoundrel, or an elderly scholar, whatever I choose, I choose it first and then optimize the hell out of it until I think it is capable of not being useless in a party of tier 2+ characters. As long as it is still the character I dreamed up in the beggining it doesnt matter what base material I use. I may not be the party batman but as long as I fill a niche, it's alright with me.:smallsmile:

Clepto
2010-07-20, 05:10 PM
Guess you didn't see this ranger variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger), then.

Actually, yes, I have. But my DM is attempting to work out the bugs with using PCGen, and we only have access to classes/etc that are in the data files he's written. While all of the "Complete" books are available, the PHB II, and UA are conspicuously absent. Besides, for someone that wants to spend all day in Wild Shape, druid levels are a better intro into MMF than that Ranger variant anyway. The Druid levels FORCE you to wait a few levels, thus driving up the duration of each Wild Shape use (MMF levels only get you more uses, not longer duration), whereas the temptation of getting into MMF earlier with the Ranger variant reduces the effectiveness of the character overall for my purposes. Remember, this isn't a fully optimized character, and it's a story-driven build. And I don't have the willpower to wait on a prestige class anyway.

Back on topic: To be honest, if I had access to UA for any campaign (I usually don't), I'd always take the custom class option. Start with The Warrior template and build my own fighter variant. I'd get enough choices every reroll to keep myself satisfied for a few characters.