Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[kailkay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Elderand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AuraTwilight]

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

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

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

[roko10]

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

....until everybody says it sucked.

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


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

[Dr. Azkur]

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

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

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

Now I keep myself mostly to borderline casters when I want to cast (Warlock and Anima Mage focused on binder) but I dive completely when mundane. But despite no longer playing T1, for years straight Cleric proved the most fun experience a roleplayer could have. And I treasure those moments dearly.

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

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

[SiuiS]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

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

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

....until everybody says it sucked.

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


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

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

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

[Dr. Azkur]

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

....until everybody says it sucked.

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

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

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

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

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

[kailkay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ahenobarbi]

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

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

[TuggyNE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. Azkur]

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

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

[ahenobarbi]

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

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

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

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

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

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

[ahenobarbi]

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

I think I don't understand what you meant.

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

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

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

[Gwendol]

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

[Pan151]

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

Whether a wizard would win vs an equally optimised fighter is irrelevant. It's not a question of whether they're both equal in a 1v1, but whether they are both reasonably useful in a party. Which they are.


Besides, arguing specifically fighter vs wizard is pointless. Fighter 20 is one of the most inefficient builds out there, and unless all PrCs are banned then wizard 20 is just plain stupid.

[Togo]

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

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

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

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

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

[SiuiS]

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

....until everybody says it sucked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ivanhoe]

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

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

[Dr. Azkur]

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

Exactly. That's just what I meant!

[Red Fel]

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

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

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

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

[kpumphre]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rejusu]

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

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

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

[Darrin]

I'm only going to mention my particular case:

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

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

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

[Norin]

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

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

Snip...

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

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

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

[eggynack]

Basically some classes rub you the wrong way plus your are not really helpful playing a caster in a party full of casters. OK So we just beat the boss everyone is wiped out. Your spells are gone now what? What can you do when a few tour guards come in and see you over the dead body of the high wizard or king?

Have my bear friend (actually not a bear friend, but bears are iconic) consume them, as I, also a bear (also not a bear) aid him in said consumption. Alternatively, just hit them over the head with a stick, because I have the ability to persist all my personal buffs, and am thus a great fighter, and even without that I would still have a pretty solid chassis. Why does everyone think that caster always means wizard (or sorcerer)? If you include bards in the equation, core casters that can still kick butt when slots run dry outnumber the ones that can't.

[LordBiscuit]

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

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

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



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