Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[HammeredWharf]

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

[TuggyNE]

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

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

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

[ChaoticDitz]

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

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

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

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

[Dr. Azkur]

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

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

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




Huh...

[Knaight]

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

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

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

[TuggyNE]

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

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

[Jon_Dahl]

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

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

[Artillery]

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

Yeah, but if you dogmatically follow the tier system

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

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

[sjeshin]

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

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

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

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

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

That's what these forums are for.

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

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

Why would you dogmatically follow the tier system, and what exactly does that mean? It's just a way to sort classes based on power/versatility.

The answer to your second question is: because I want to. Killing things with weapons really fast is an artform in this game, and some people don't want to play it on easy-mode.

[OldTrees1]

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

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

[nobodez]

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

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

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

[Emperor Tippy]

Because their character concept involves a non-caster?

Or because they want to be lazy?

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

Or because they find it more fun?

[ChaoticDitz]

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

That's what these forums are for.

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

[SouthpawSoldier]

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

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

Please do.

[Shining Wrath]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what these forums are for.

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

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

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

[ahenobarbi]

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

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

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

[jedipotter]

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

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

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

[Seerow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kudaku]

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[Kudaku]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eggynack]

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

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

Well, the character might die, at the very least, and that's reasonably likely if you're hanging out with a lot of folks with a full menu. Lacking options is bad for your health, in other words. Maybe your DM will hand you vitamin supplements in the form of magic items or something, but not necessarily, and it won't always be enough, and maybe the guy with the full menu will give you some food off his plate in the form of buffing, but that is again not necessarily going to happen, nor is it necessarily going to be enough.

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[eggynack]

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

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