Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[BeerMug Paladin]

This

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

Indeed! Play what seems like a fun idea! I generally like playing casters, but I don't optimize them or choose spells for any reason other than I'd have fun using them.

Heck, I once made a 3rd level character that was a 2nd level fighter with 7 charisma and took 1 level of sorcerer. I gave myself the backstory that when my character was younger, he was able to cast spells, until someone came to town and stole his power away from him. He wasn't able to do anything about it at the time, and instead trained to become a fighter to learn to defend the weak.

It was a ridiculously stupid build, right? Well, it was a fun idea, so I did it!

[LordBiscuit]

Indeed! Play what seems like a fun idea! I generally like playing casters, but I don't optimize them or choose spells for any reason other than I'd have fun using them.

Heck, I once made a 3rd level character that was a 2nd level fighter with 7 charisma and took 1 level of sorcerer. I gave myself the backstory that when my character was younger, he was able to cast spells, until someone came to town and stole his power away from him. He wasn't able to do anything about it at the time, and instead trained to become a fighter to learn to defend the weak.

It was a ridiculously stupid build, right? Well, it was a fun idea, so I did it!

Yeah, I think the closest I had to that was when I was playing a elven wizard. Pretty standard stuff, aside fromt he fact I was going all mad scientist (full transmutationist, with a couple other spells thrown in as I was often the plan C of the party. If all else fails, supernova) and was curious on the Frenzied bezerkers power, that enabled him to slay dragons. Naturally he was very interested and like every good madcap scientist, experimented with various ways of recreating the red rage.

Believe me, it was one of the most madcap times I had with a character concept. I could either turn a member of the party into a froathing madman (largely with their promission of course.) or act as additional charges for our madman. If I had the time, I would have had it avalible in wand form for the assissin.

Though apprently after the campiagn had ended, I would have been able to cast a "mass" version of frenzy when I got 6th level spells. I chuckled full heartingly at that.


Perhaps it sounds a tad silly, but it was a lot of fun for a side project and RP experience. It was also the campiagn that "mundanes" were shown off the most, if only because of our frenzied bezerker. Somehow we made it work, largely because I was the only character in the party (1 Hexblade, a cleric, 2 fighters, a assissin, a bard and myself the wizard) who figured out how to stop him once he started turning around. Probably one of the most madcap campiagns we had because we let him go nuts with the Bezerker concept.

For him, he played that character because he wanted not only be able to kill everything before him but also because he geninuely could write complex characters. (That guy if I recall correctly had at least 3 alternate personalties that resulted in his mental instability and the ability to "Fight like 3 men")

[Vanitas]

Indeed! Play what seems like a fun idea! I generally like playing casters, but I don't optimize them or choose spells for any reason other than I'd have fun using them.

Heck, I once made a 3rd level character that was a 2nd level fighter with 7 charisma and took 1 level of sorcerer. I gave myself the backstory that when my character was younger, he was able to cast spells, until someone came to town and stole his power away from him. He wasn't able to do anything about it at the time, and instead trained to become a fighter to learn to defend the weak.

It was a ridiculously stupid build, right? Well, it was a fun idea, so I did it!

Once I played a sorcerer who was incredibly afraid of his magical power running dry. So he almost never used spells. I took every ability that would give me something instead of spells and some reserve feats. Ran around with a longsword. Quite cool character.

[SiuiS]

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

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

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

That's a feature of the game, not a bug, and only looks bad because of skewed perspective.

D&D is built so that fighting happens. Fighters are best at fighting, wizards worst. Every now and then, something pops up Fighter can't Fight and wizard says "stand back! Now is my time to shine!", and the assumption that it's been the wizard's game this whole time is faulty. You establish relevance by baseline; not by maximal efficiency.

[eggynack]

That's a feature of the game, not a bug, and only looks bad because of skewed perspective.

D&D is built so that fighting happens. Fighters are best at fighting, wizards worst. Every now and then, something pops up Fighter can't Fight and wizard says "stand back! Now is my time to shine!", and the assumption that it's been the wizard's game this whole time is faulty. You establish relevance by baseline; not by maximal efficiency.

It'd be nice were that the case, and were fighters some bastions of fighting against whom the legions of hell could not possibly stand, but it's just not the case. I mean, wizards certainly aren't the best in the fighting niche, granted, but they're not the worst at it either, with summons forming a pretty reasonable beatstick force. More importantly, fighters are certainly not the best at fighting. Among the core classes, that award probably goes to the druid, king of being seven beat sticks at once, and the cleric isn't all that far behind, especially when you take DMM into account. This idea of the game you have, where fighters are usually standing in the rhetorical spotlight of effectiveness, only having to stand aside when facing one of the seven enemies that they are weak to, doesn't really reflect any understanding of the game that I have.

[Gavinfoxx]

Conan is a:

Spirit Lion Totem, Bear Totem, Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 2 / Wilderness, Penetrating Strike Rogue 3 / Strong-Arm, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Ranger 3 / Zhentarim Soldier, Thug, Dungeon Crusher, Hit and Run, Physical Prowess, Skilled City Dweller (trade Ride for Tumble) Fighter 3 / Warblade 2.

Also:

That's a feature of the game, not a bug, and only looks bad because of skewed perspective.

D&D is built so that fighting happens. Fighters are best at fighting, wizards worst. Every now and then, something pops up Fighter can't Fight and wizard says "stand back! Now is my time to shine!", and the assumption that it's been the wizard's game this whole time is faulty. You establish relevance by baseline; not by maximal efficiency.

In this forum, it's traditional to use blue for sarcasm.

[Vanitas]

In this forum, it's traditional to use blue for sarcasm.

In this forum, being rude is against the forum rules.

[Knaight]

That's a feature of the game, not a bug, and only looks bad because of skewed perspective.

D&D is built so that fighting happens. Fighters are best at fighting, wizards worst. Every now and then, something pops up Fighter can't Fight and wizard says "stand back! Now is my time to shine!", and the assumption that it's been the wizard's game this whole time is faulty. You establish relevance by baseline; not by maximal efficiency.

If the fighters were actually the best at fighting under normal circumstances, I'd agree with this. The problem is that basically every circumstance is one where a wizard can do better, including ones where it absolutely makes sense for a fighter to shine. Single targets have the least disparity (save or dies exist, but heavy damage shots area easy), but fighting multiple humanoids is something that just about every fighter should be good at, and that wizards tend to have an advantage at due to area effects. Then there are the cases such as flying characters, where the fighters tend to be able to do either melee or ranged combat and not both, and thus struggle unless heavily magically boosted or happening to be ranged focused, where it causes no real problems for the wizards. It's this background that incorporeal enemies - which absolutely should pose a problem for fighters - are put up against.

[ChaoticDitz]

The problem with the arguments against Fighters is that them being the main source of overall battle-winning was the intended design. Now, while the designers did a very bad job of this and are thus horrible people who deserve to be shunned and mocked, that doesn't change the fact that the designers expected Fighters to deal higher damage than blasters, be more durable than and again outdamage animal companions/summons/bear-shifted Druids, be able to incapacitate enemies more easily than non-blaster wizards, and stand as the only one who can directly battle the BBEG. And this really does happen, in fact it happens with the majority of gamers who don't sniff around online for powergaming tips. It just starts to fall apart if a) you go online, gaining experience with the true mechanical power available in the system, or b) acquire same said experience because you're identical in mind to the first optimizers.

Seriously, look up campaign journals if you need proof. Mundane characters really can rock at their thing if nobody else has figured out the true strength of casting, and those games are certainly fun or this system wouldn't be popular.

[SiuiS]

It'd be nice were that the case, and were fighters some bastions of fighting against whom the legions of hell could not possibly stand, but it's just not the case. I mean, wizards certainly aren't the best in the fighting niche, granted, but they're not the worst at it either, with summons forming a pretty reasonable beatstick force. More importantly, fighters are certainly not the best at fighting. Among the core classes, that award probably goes to the druid, king of being seven beat sticks at once, and the cleric isn't all that far behind, especially when you take DMM into account. This idea of the game you have, where fighters are usually standing in the rhetorical spotlight of effectiveness, only having to stand aside when facing one of the seven enemies that they are weak to, doesn't really reflect any understanding of the game that I have.

You've made the mistake of ordering by efficiency and thinking only the top three are really valuable.

In basic "here's a monster, it attacks you" D&D, being a good fighter doesn't mean "does the most damage the most often". Being a good fighter means "hit on a 12+ and deal enough damage to hurt the target", and that's it. Just because other classes do that as well doesn't mean fighters stop doing that.

In this forum, it's traditional to use blue for sarcasm.

In the Yoruba religion, it's traditional to wear a hat to prevent your crown from being contaminated.

Why are we sharing traditions unrelated to the conversation at hand?

In this forum, being rude is against the forum rules.

Luckily, the forum staff are more interested in pretending to be mortal, with follies and limits, than they are in perfect robotic execution of their rules, until after the apocalyptic coup. n.n

[Squirrel_Dude]

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

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

Because sometimes I like a challenge.

[eggynack]

You've made the mistake of ordering by efficiency and thinking only the top three are really valuable.

In basic "here's a monster, it attacks you" D&D, being a good fighter doesn't mean "does the most damage the most often". Being a good fighter means "hit on a 12+ and deal enough damage to hurt the target", and that's it. Just because other classes do that as well doesn't mean fighters stop doing that.

It means that fighters stop doing that the best. You said best at fighting. Very explicitly. You were mistaken. If you were just saying that fighters can beat face in decent fashion, that's fine, but it doesn't mean all that much. It's a problematic thing, that fighters are neither the best at anything, nor good at a variety of things. They kinda suck.

[Gavinfoxx]

Why are we sharing traditions unrelated to the conversation at hand?

Because I really thought you were being sarcastic when you said that Fighters -- FIGHTERS -- were good, let alone best at fighting by any metric? It's the only way the statement makes any sense? Barbarians, sure. Druids and Clerics, yea. Highly ACFed Rangers? Alright. But Fighters?

[SiuiS]

It means that fighters stop doing that the best. You said best at fighting. Very explicitly. You were mistaken. If you were just saying that fighters can beat face in decent fashion, that's fine, but it doesn't mean all that much. It's a problematic thing, that fighters are neither the best at anything, nor good at a variety of things. They kinda suck.

I said the game was made so fighters would be best at fighting. The Druid was also supposed to be a flavorful healer with good scouting abilities.

Don't get hung up on technicalities.

[eggynack]

I said the game was made so fighters would be best at fighting. The Druid was also supposed to be a flavorful healer with good scouting abilities.

Don't get hung up on technicalities.

I don't play some imaginary game where fighters are somehow relevant. I play this one, where they are not. It's been the wizard's game this whole time, not necessarily because of anything the designers intended, but because that's the game in front of us. Whether the game was made so that fighters would be best at fighting is completely irrelevant, because they're not the best at fighting.

[Knaight]

I said the game was made so fighters would be best at fighting.

The game was made so fighters would be best at fighting the way the last apple-banana cake I made from an unknown recipe was made to be moist and delicious. The fighters aren't the best at fighting despite the intent, and said cake had major under cooking issues in the middle that undercut delicious. WotC can claim all they want that because they intended the fighter to be the best fighting class, it is. I can similarly claim all I want that the cake is delicious. It's clear in the cake example that the claims aren't worth anything, and the cake is what it is. Why is the game somehow different?

[SiuiS]

I don't play some imaginary game where fighters are somehow relevant. I play this one, where they are not. It's been the wizard's game this whole time, not necessarily because of anything the designers intended, but because that's the game in front of us. Whether the game was made so that fighters would be best at fighting is completely irrelevant, because they're not the best at fighting.

What is 'this game', then? Because your claim is that fighters are bad at fighting, but I can find you all sorts of threads talking about how the party fighter (or monk even) rocked the house.

You'll probably say "oh. They're playing so that fighters have a chance" which is kind of the point isn't it? If you only play so that 99% of problems are very difficult for the most optimized class segment to handle then you're specifically creating a situation within the broader aegis of D&D to prove a point. It's like saying "I took this game, banned everything but the most difficult to perform maneuvers, and programmed the AI to only lose to those maneuvers and so every video game must be played at this level".

I'll reiterate; if a character meets a benchmark, it doesn't matter to the game if the other characters meet that benchmark better.

Programming the game to drastically increase those benchmarks likewise doesn't say anything about the game. It speaks only to your expectations.

Why is the game somehow different?

The game is designed to bake in an easy bake oven and people are complaining their industrial microwave set on High for double the cool time isn't moist and delicious except for a small subset of ingredients that survive these conditions, as if it somehow reflects on the other ingredients and not their absurd cooking strategies.

"Why play a mundane"
"Because the assumptions in high optimization caster games arbitrarily increase the difficulty for no raisin, and being a caster doesn't guarantee usefulness, it guarantees the capacity to be useful – that also comes from playing a game where the guidelines aren't bent by the DM specifically to be hard on casters"

Simple really.

[Psyren]

I'll reiterate; if a character meets a benchmark, it doesn't matter to the game if the other characters meet that benchmark better.

Precisely; Fighters and Monks can handle CR-appropriate challenges with level-appropriate wealth, just like every other PC class in the whole game. This is why the majority of tables don't see the "balance issue."

Furthermore, forums like these tend to assume casters are always played at maximum potential and efficiency. Meanwhile, even very simple hurdles like "prepare spells you expect to use every day" are routinely flubbed IRL.

[Gotterdammerung]

Furthermore, forums like these tend to assume casters are always played at maximum potential and efficiency. Meanwhile, even very simple hurdles like "prepare spells you expect to use every day" are routinely flubbed IRL.

Yes. This. So much this.

[Knaight]

The game is designed to bake in an easy bake oven and people are complaining their industrial microwave set on High for double the cool time isn't moist and delicious except for a small subset of ingredients that survive these conditions, as if it somehow reflects on the other ingredients and not their absurd cooking strategies.

You get the same issues to different degrees regardless of baseline optimization. The issues are already there in the easy bake oven - I'll be the first to acknowledge that the industrial microwave exacerbates the problems, but it doesn't create them.

[Kazyan]

Furthermore, forums like these tend to assume casters are always played at maximum potential and efficiency. Meanwhile, even very simple hurdles like "prepare spells you expect to use every day" are routinely flubbed IRL.

Judging by the responses that come up when someone brings up the possibility of a generic caster losing at something? We collectively assume that every wizard will have an appropriate contingency, the right prepared spells, a selection of scrolls, Spontaneous Divination to know what will happen today, will never be surprised, will never have time pressures that prevent a 15-workday beginning and ending in Rope Trick, will have Abrupt Jaunt to survive low levels, will have an invincible spellbook, will always have appropriate buffs up beforehand, will have enough spell slots to do all this even at low levels, and will never encounter a target that makes their saving throw against a save-or-die.

Anything less is too low-op to take seriously, after all.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Judging by the responses that come up when someone brings up the possibility of a generic caster losing at something? We collectively assume that every wizard will have an appropriate contingency, the right prepared spells, a selection of scrolls, Spontaneous Divination to know what will happen today, will never be surprised, will never have time pressures that prevent a 15-workday beginning and ending in Rope Trick, will have Abrupt Jaunt to survive low levels, will have an invincible spellbook, will always have appropriate buffs up beforehand, will have enough spell slots to do all this even at low levels, and will never encounter a target that makes their saving throw against a save-or-die.

Anything less is too low-op to take seriously, after all.

I appreciate this post so much. Partly because it doesn't use blue text, and partly because it's so true. I mean, sure, technically, in-character it might be only natural for a character with 30+ Int to be doing that kind of stuff forever and always, but in practice? It's neither common, nor really very much fun. I can just see the monsters' reactions now.

"Oh, it's that famous wizard. Let's attack the fighter instead, I don't like that wizard. Oh, he's BFCing to keep us away from the fighter? Sigh, guess all that's left is for us to commit suicide."

Wonder how long most people (aside from me of course) would enjoy it if literally every fight went something like that.

[SiuiS]

Meanwhile, even very simple hurdles like "prepare spells you expect to use every day" are routinely flubbed IRL.

Oh gods yes. Especially when they read the little sidebar description and have no idea how the nitty gritty of the spell functions. "It says it kills people, why am I rolling D6s? If I wanted to kill him with damage I would use fireball".

You get the same issues to different degrees regardless of baseline optimization. The issues are already there in the easy bake oven - I'll be the first to acknowledge that the industrial microwave exacerbates the problems, but it doesn't create them.

This is true in concept, but like Psyren said, enough tables don't see these issues that that don't really come up outside of convincing Internet arguments.

Judging by the responses that come up when someone brings up the possibility of a generic caster losing at something? We collectively assume that every wizard will have an appropriate contingency, the right prepared spells, a selection of scrolls, Spontaneous Divination to know what will happen today, will never be surprised, will never have time pressures that prevent a 15-workday beginning and ending in Rope Trick, will have Abrupt Jaunt to survive low levels, will have an invincible spellbook, will always have appropriate buffs up beforehand, will have enough spell slots to do all this even at low levels, and will never encounter a target that makes their saving throw against a save-or-die.

Anything less is too low-op to take seriously, after all.

Some of that doesn't matter. If you're a sorcerer and you take color spray and you line up clustered enemies you will routinely outperform the entire party on accident. It's as simple as "I try to hit more than one guy with my attack" and you've beaten level 1. The concept of casters breaking things is solid. The answer in a group of friends playing games together isn't "oh roll a wizard next time trololololololol" though, it's backing off a bit so your friends still have fun.

[Gwendol]

Precisely; Fighters and Monks can handle CR-appropriate challenges with level-appropriate wealth, just like every other PC class in the whole game. This is why the majority of tables don't see the "balance issue."

Furthermore, forums like these tend to assume casters are always played at maximum potential and efficiency. Meanwhile, even very simple hurdles like "prepare spells you expect to use every day" are routinely flubbed IRL.

Word! In games I play this is so very true.

[Togo]

Some of that doesn't matter. If you're a sorcerer and you take color spray and you line up clustered enemies you will routinely outperform the entire party on accident. It's as simple as "I try to hit more than one guy with my attack" and you've beaten level 1. The concept of casters breaking things is solid.

But that's what casters are supposed to do. This is a case of a wizard, given ideal conditions out performing the rest of the party. Just as a rogue, given a ideal conditions, outperforms the rest of the party. They have capabilities that are supposed to be superior in narrow circumstances, just like any other character in the game.

[Vrock_Summoner]

But that's what casters are supposed to do. This is a case of a wizard, given ideal conditions out performing the rest of the party. Just as a rogue, given a ideal conditions, outperforms the rest of the party. They have capabilities that are supposed to be superior in narrow circumstances, just like any other character in the game.

I just felt the hopes of a thousand monks rising. Take back the lie you've spoken, villain, monks will never be superior and you're a fool to let them think they can!

On-topic, although I've seen plenty of examples of people explaining how Wizards were equal to other characters from a design standpoint, I am still confused by the high-tier Divine casters. I mean, it's not rocket science, game developers, if you design spells like Righteous Might and Divine Power for Clerics, they'll realistically outshine the fighter even if they're meant to be party bandaids as well. Yay intention fail.

There are very few reasons to play non-casters, actually... We get much cooler plot hooks