Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[Rejusu]

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.

What you're saying is only really applicable to wizards/sorcerers and other similar "squishy" casters. Druids still have wildshape and their animal companions to fall back on when their spell slots are empty. Clerics have 3/4 BAB, heavy armour proficiency, and a lot of buffs with good durations. It's only really the wizard that finds himself at a loss for words if he runs dry.

Which shouldn't really be happening anyway except at very early levels unless you're going nova. As for making sure you get enough sleep, there's spells for that.

Besides the situation you described (finding your character unable to contribute to an encounter) is much more common for mundanes. Undead/construct/etc? Say bye bye to your sneak attack rogue! Incorporeal or flying? Melee says "Wha?". For a properly built caster there's almost no situation they can't handle provided they have spells left. And if they don't they just escape and come back tomorrow. But a barbarian isn't going to grow wings overnight.

[Pan151]

Besides the situation you described (finding your character unable to contribute to an encounter) is much more common for mundanes. Undead/construct/etc? Say bye bye to your sneak attack rogue! Incorporeal or flying? Melee says "Wha?".

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

[Red Fel]

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

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.

2. If they can find ways. That's assuming the DM makes MagicMart available to his players, or allows races or templates or what-not. If not, the melees have to hope that they can randomly find a Ghost Touch weapon, or a magic item with per-day uses of Flight, or something similar. Otherwise, the melees have to invest in casting or spell-like classes just to get the same benefit.

3. But never just as well. That's the key point. Casters get these advantages innately, as a function of their class. Casters get the ability to cast spells, and can learn the spells that they need for every encounter. Melees, generally, do not get these abilities innately; they are dependent on magic items, or having the party caster use buffs on them. That's not "just as well."

Your position is close to, if not exactly, the Oberoni Fallacy - it's not broken if it can be fixed. But the point is that if it has to be fixed - i.e. if the non-casters need some sort of outside assistance to perform at the same tasks the casters can do innately - it's already broken to begin with.

[Rejusu]

Except mundanes can adapt to those as well, only they have to use feats/items/racial features instead of spells. If they know their weaknesses, they can find ways to overcome them just as well as a caster can.

The point is that casters can adapt on the fly and at a much earlier level than mundanes. Besides mundanes have to spend feats and WBL on adapting, both limited resources. Remember that casters get feats and WBL just like mundanes do, and they don't have to spend it all to make sure they're prepared for everything.

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

[Pan151]

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.

2. If they can find ways. That's assuming the DM makes MagicMart available to his players, or allows races or templates or what-not. If not, the melees have to hope that they can randomly find a Ghost Touch weapon, or a magic item with per-day uses of Flight, or something similar. Otherwise, the melees have to invest in casting or spell-like classes just to get the same benefit.

3. But never just as well. That's the key point. Casters get these advantages innately, as a function of their class. Casters get the ability to cast spells, and can learn the spells that they need for every encounter. Melees, generally, do not get these abilities innately; they are dependent on magic items, or having the party caster use buffs on them. That's not "just as well."

Your position is close to, if not exactly, the Oberoni Fallacy - it's not broken if it can be fixed. But the point is that if it has to be fixed - i.e. if the non-casters need some sort of outside assistance to perform at the same tasks the casters can do innately - it's already broken to begin with.

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

The point is that casters can adapt on the fly and at a much earlier level than mundanes. Besides mundanes have to spend feats and WBL on adapting, both limited resources. Remember that casters get feats and WBL just like mundanes do, and they don't have to spend it all to make sure they're prepared for everything.

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

Some prepared casters (mostly wizards) also have to spend WBL to have a good selection of spells. That is however a much smaller expense than that of non-casters indeed.

Which is why I thing WBL is a faulty guideline to follow. Instead, the DM should just handpick whatever items he things are necessary to keep everyone in the party relevant and throw them in the loot.

[Red Fel]

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

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.

And that's not even counting divine casters, who already know all of their spells. A Cleric doesn't need to buy scrolls; he just prays, and bam, he gets Miracle.

Your non-caster? Assuming he can get within range of our aforementioned flying, incorporeal undead (that is, assuming it isn't flying out of his reach), his crits will be useless, he'll suffer a miss chance, and if he doesn't have a magical weapon, he's straight-up out of luck.

You can build a frighteningly effective spellcaster, arcane or divine, based entirely on common, ordinary spells in the core books. A spontaneous caster isn't even reliant upon the availability of scrolls or wands to get what he wants. A non-caster is almost entirely reliant upon magic items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

Oh, right. It's the lazy DM's fault for not making non-casters useful. Hello, Oberoni Fallacy.

[eggynack]

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

Those two things aren't really the same. Spells are pretty cheap, and are thus pretty easy to find, and you can get a lot of them. Magic items that solve problems are expensive, by contrast, and are a bit more rare as a result. The rarity isn't the real issue though. The issue is the price, because if you're solving problems through magic items, then you can't reasonably be expected to have solutions to all, or even most problems.

Let's use flight as a reasonable example. A standard flight item, found on the ever-useful lists of necessary magic items is the winged mask (MoF) and sells for 13,000 GP. You can technically purchase that at level 6, assuming standard WBL, but that's incredibly unrealistic. At level 10, as an arbitrary level, this item would consume a bit more than a fourth of your 49,000 GP. That's a lot. You can't solve every possible problem like this, not on the lists of necessary magic items, and not outside of them. Wealth by level is very much a limited resource, and is, if anything, more limited than what you can pull off with spells. I'm talking about a day by day basis too, because it only takes a day to completely change your list. One of the big struggles of the fighter is that fighters are fixed, while casters can adapt, and once you buy this winged mask, that mask is reasonably set in stone. It's a bad thing.

[Pan151]

Oh, right. It's the lazy DM's fault for not making non-casters useful. Hello, Oberoni Fallacy.

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

[eggynack]

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

That doesn't really make the two sides of the equation balanced though. They can't, "overcome their weaknesses as well as a caster can," because the DM has to actively work against the fighter's weaknesses in order to get anything close to balance. That's pretty much the opposite of the game being balanced, especially when it doesn't even necessarily get you all the way there, because the DM presumably has to do this for all of the fighter's weaknesses and lack of strengths.

[Rejusu]

If the wizard knows what cookie-cutter spells he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells scrolls of said spells to add to his spellbook, then the fighter also knows what cookie-cutter items he might need in the future and can find a magic mart that sells said items.

Or, alternatively, the DM can stop being lazy and give the party the amount of loot that is necessary to keep everyone equally useful.

Ignoring that regardless of DM intervention the Wizard still gets two spells per level with the only restriction being that it has to be something he can cast. Mundanes suffer far more from being denied access to magic mart. The wizard has Amazon prime and just gets most of his toys delivered. And that's just the wizard.

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

You're missing the point. The fact is that the wizard or your other average caster does not need the DM to cater to them. DMs are variable, rulebooks aren't. Just because a mundane can function effectively in a game does not mean there's no discrepancy.

There are situations that can and will arise that mundanes can't handle. Just because a particular DM won't throw them at you doesn't mean they don't exist.

[albeaver89]

Stormwind Fallacy: Roleplayers are not automatically anti-minmaxing.

You asked why you would play a fighter, he answered 'role play'. He wants to role play a fighter. Has nothing to do with minmaxing.

[Chester]

Several pages long, so forgive me if I missed what was said already:

Sometimes, it's satisfying to put a sword through a goblin. Period.

[Pan151]

There are situations that can and will arise that mundanes can't handle. Just because a particular DM won't throw them at you doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just like there are (admittedly, rare) situations that casters can't handle, but mundanes can.

Anyway, DnD is not a game that exists in a vaccuum. There always exists a DM to tailor the game to his/her liking. Does the DM want their game to be played in relative balance between all party members (not necessarily just between casters and mundanes), or do they not? If they don't care, then no problem. Setting an adventure and leaving it up to the players to figure out the optimal way to tackle it or die trying is a perfectly valid way of doing things. If they do care, however, they have to be the ones making sure they keep the balance and make sure that every party member is useful in a meaningful way. It's not the rogue's fault that you constantly throw undead and costructs at them, but no locks or traps. It's not the fighter's fault that all the encounters you throw them could be easily tanked by the wizard's minions alone. Similarly, it's not the cleric's or the wizard's fault that you desided that Dispelling and Anti-Magic fields are exceedingly common.

Mundanes have options. Not as many and not as powerful as full casters - that much is the ruleset's fault. But they do have enough to be at least deserve a spot in a party - if not, then that is the DM not doing a good enough job at making his game enjoyable for all his players.

[eggynack]

Just like there are (admittedly, rare) situations that casters can't handle, but mundanes can.

Can ya think of any for druids? Do take heed of the fact that there exist AMF piercing blasting spells for druids as well.

[Pan151]

Can ya think of any for druids? Do take heed of the fact that there exist AMF piercing blasting spells for druids as well.

Magic spells that ignore null-magic zones? Such as?

And is there any that would be better than simply setting a Barbarian loose?

[eggynack]

Magic spells that ignore null-magic zones? Such as?

Splinterbolt, blast of sand, and sudden stalagmite are three that can hit a golem within an AMF, and that's just blasting.

[zephyrkinetic]

Because glass cannons are lamesauce. I'd much prefer to wade into melee combat and start swinging at things.

But then, I don't play with people who have to exploit loopholes and powergame to enjoy themselves; we're there for the roleplay. And it doesn't get more exciting than a berzerker with a pair of Dwarven waraxes, or a big dumb Orc hitting people with a tree trunk.

[Red Fel]

If the DM is throwing the party flying incorporea undead, but at the same time gives them no means of actually dealing them, then yes, it's the DM's fault.

As Rejusu said, the caster's ability to hit an incorporeal undead is independent of the DM's aptitudes. I refuse to accept the argument that, if the DM brings in a monster that a single PC is not equipped to handle or otherwise contribute to the combat, the DM is somehow being lazy.

If that were the case, a DM could never throw undead or constructs at a party with a Rogue, or anything that flies (including dragons) at a party with a Fighter, or anything incorporeal at a party with basically anyone who isn't a caster, for fear that they'd be left out and what kind of horrible DM would do that.

Yet even that is beside the point. The point is that the caster can handle any of these threats without requiring additional assistance; the non-caster can't. The caster is therefore, by its very nature, better-equipped to handle problems. When you say that the non-caster is equally equipped if the DM intervenes, and if the DM fails to intervene then the DM is being problematic, you are indulging in the Oberoni Fallacy writ large. You're arguing that, if the DM can fix it, it isn't broken; and if the DM fails to fix it, the DM is at fault - it's still not broken despite not being fixed.

Nobody is saying that non-casters lack a spot in the party. They have one. But to pretend that their efforts cannot be reproduced effectively by a caster is to ignore facts. And to blame the DM when non-casters are rendered ineffectual or redundant by casters is to ignore the fact that this is how the game was designed, for good or ill.

And even this is beside the point of the original question, which was "Why play a non-caster?" The answer to which, it appears, includes (but is not limited to): (1) challenge, (2) flavor, (3) lack of bookkeeping, (4) fun.

[eggynack]

And is there any that would be better than simply setting a Barbarian loose?

Not necessarily, but possibly when considering the fact that there is also an animal companion there. Either way, the question wasn't, "Can the druid handle this better?" The question was, "Can the druid handle this?" The answer is usually going to be a very big yes.

[Pan151]

I refuse to accept the argument that, if the DM brings in a monster that a single PC is not equipped to handle or otherwise contribute to the combat, the DM is somehow being lazy.

Who exactly said that that one monster that one PC can't handle constitutes a lazy DM?

It's perfectly ok to, every once in a while, have one of the PCs be carried by the rest of the party. To have every single encounter tailor-made for all of the party to be equally useful at would get really bland really fast.

If however, one or more characters are routinely getting carried by the rest of the party without much of a difference in optimisation (say the mundanes are getting carried by the casters) then the DM should stop crying about linear warriors-quadratic wizards and do something to actually fix it.

[OldTrees1]

Why should somebody play a non-caster?
Because they want to.

Why might they want to?
1) They might dislike limited abilities like Vancian casting.
1a: There are still some casters that do not have limited abilities but those are generally on par with non-casters. People that personally dislike limited abilities would probably like both Warlock and Fighter.
1b: Some casters convert their spells into persistent buffs. However without high optimization, you get less out of a persistent buffs than you would get with relevant class features (assuming you ignore the disliked non persistent spells/day).

2) They might dislike bookkeeping/complexity.
2a: You might say that classes like Sorcerer have little bookkeeping or that caster builds tend to have less multiclassing than non-casters. However I would remind you that what is/is not perceived as bookkeeping depends on the person.

3) Sometimes a character concept includes magical inability as part of the core of the character concept. ("Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth to his father despite his inability to harness magic")
3a: This is not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind Fallacy would be claiming that this character concept cannot be optimized because it is born from roleplaying.

...

You get the jist:
There are plenty of valid reasons for someone to prefer what they prefer and that preference might be the preference of non-casters over casters.

[Red Fel]

Who exactly said that that one monster that one PC can't handle constitutes a lazy DM?

It's perfectly ok to, every once in a while, have one of the PCs be carried by the rest of the party. To have every single encounter tailor-made for all of the party to be equally useful at would get really bland really fast.

Agreed.

If however, one or more characters are routinely getting carried by the rest of the party without much of a difference in optimisation (say the mundanes are getting carried by the casters) then the DM should stop crying about linear warriors-quadratic wizards and do something to actually fix it.

But here's the problem. A poorly-optimized-yet-reasonably-effective caster can still carry a highly-optimized non-caster. Assuming equal optimization, the caster will definitely be able to carry the party.

Let me relate a personal anecdote. I was once in a Dragonlance campaign. The DM was an experienced DM and player, and the players ranged between "extremely new" and "one or two campaigns' experience." None of us were remotely optimizers. One member of our party was a Black Robe Wizard. This character, as soon as she researched Teleport Without Error, became our primary source of transportation.

It didn't matter that there were travel caravans; we waited for her spells to refresh. It didn't matter that we had a gnomish engineer in our party who could develop better transportation; we waited for the wizard. It didn't matter that the DM gave us a gnomish submarine, including several Permanenced Unseen Servants to take 10 on the operations, to get us around; when our wizard was off buying reagents or slaughtering the villagers, we sat in a grotto and waited for her. This was not the DM's fault. The mechanics required us to make regular rolls to operate the ship, and provided that travel took time, meaning days or even weeks. Or we could simply wait a day for the wizard to prepare her spells, and be wherever we wanted to be.

This same wizard also had a variety of battlefield control spells that she used to completely dominate combat or lock down enemies. I repeat that this was not an optimized character; this was a player who saw spells in the book that looked useful, and took them, end of story. If our non-casters had been optimized, she still would have been more useful, and more valuable in combat. We fought a skeletal dragon once - melee was minimally effective against it. Guess who was the MVP of that fight?

A moderately- or even poorly-optimized caster can run circles around similarly- or better-optimized non-casters, and that's not the DM's fault. It's not the DM's responsibility to nerf the casters, it's not his responsibility to beef the non-casters, it's his responsibility to see to it that people at the table are able to have fun.

Casters will contribute more in most encounters. It is unfortunate, but true. If characters are "routinely getting carried," the responsibility does not fall to the DM to take them by the hand. The responsibility falls to the players - assuming the discrepancy in utility bothers them - to find a way to contribute.

[Togo]

In the age old "mundanes vs casters" debate it's a point commonly raised and it always ignores that casters get spells on top of their items/feats/racials, not instead of them.

The point that more often gets ignored is that there are no mundanes in D&D. Most classes get spellcasting, and they all get magical equipment. The fact that magical equipment duplicates a vast range of spell effects does rather undercut the idea that non-full spellcasters can't fly, tactical teleport, or what have you. Items expand everyone's capabilties into full caster territory. That full casters get them too isn't ignored so much as it is irrelevent to point being made.


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.
...
Your non-caster? Assuming he can get within range of our aforementioned flying, incorporeal undead (that is, assuming it isn't flying out of his reach), his crits will be useless, he'll suffer a miss chance, and if he doesn't have a magical weapon, he's straight-up out of luck.

So our hypothetical non-caster has no ranged weapon and no magic weapon? Can you perhaps see the inconsistency in your reasoning there?


That doesn't really make the two sides of the equation balanced though. They can't, "overcome their weaknesses as well as a caster can," because the DM has to actively work against the fighter's weaknesses in order to get anything close to balance.

Only in the same way that the DM has to work against the spellcaster's weaknesses. If I had all my class abilities in the form of an easily stealable book of spells, I'd be wanting to do something to protect it. But if you look at advice given to wizards, even highly optimised wizards rarely bother with spellbook protection. Why? Because the DM isn't going to steal your spellbook.

Full spellcasters have more varied capabilities than other classes, and thus fewer outright weaknesses, but a DM has to watch out for their weaknesses just as the DM has to watch out for everyone else's.

[Togo]

Let me relate a personal anecdote.

Shrug. I regularly 'carried' the party in a campaign I was playing in, casters and non-casters alike. I was playing a powerful non-caster. When I switched to DMing the group, the group was dominated in combat by an optimised non-caster.

If you're finding that non-casters are overshadowed by casters even when the former are optimised and the latter are not, then maybe you're not playing the non-casters right? Or maybe you're finding that optimising a caster is fairly easy?

In your example of teleport without error, I'd agree that the fault wasn't the DM, but rather the players in not finding a way to contribute. Particularly when the means for said contribution, such as a gnomish sub, were handed to them on a plate.

[Ivanhoe]

Let me relate a personal anecdote. I was once in a Dragonlance campaign. The DM was an experienced DM and player, and the players ranged between "extremely new" and "one or two campaigns' experience." None of us were remotely optimizers. One member of our party was a Black Robe Wizard. This character, as soon as she researched Teleport Without Error, became our primary source of transportation.

It didn't matter that there were travel caravans; we waited for her spells to refresh. It didn't matter that we had a gnomish engineer in our party who could develop better transportation; we waited for the wizard. It didn't matter that the DM gave us a gnomish submarine, including several Permanenced Unseen Servants to take 10 on the operations, to get us around; when our wizard was off buying reagents or slaughtering the villagers, we sat in a grotto and waited for her. This was not the DM's fault. The mechanics required us to make regular rolls to operate the ship, and provided that travel took time, meaning days or even weeks. Or we could simply wait a day for the wizard to prepare her spells, and be wherever we wanted to be.

Come on. If that is not the laziest or most naive DM in a long while, what is? Such a cool submarine - it would be great for characters, say, levels 5-8. But any DM providing such a thing while the wizard reaches the ability for teleport is asking for it. And even then (lazy DM again), teleport does not get you to unknown places or some that are somewhat protected from teleport and scrying.

That, of course, abstracts from your experience in the same group where the wizard dominated high-level encounters. That happens a lot.

[Killer Angel]

Non-Caster Kill them because you never run out of attacks,

In combat situations, non casters tend to run out of HPs, pretty quickly.
And certainly more faster than casters with their spells.

[Agincourt]

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.

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.

I realize you were answering for another poster, but I hope there is more to SiuiS's suggestion. A character who does that will only have 1 spell to blast with, and then only if he's a specialist. At level 1, Shield lasts 1 minute, and Mage Armor lasts 1 hour. A level 1 wizard is who uses this strategy is basically committed to the 15 minute adventuring day or, more accurately, the 1 minute adventuring day.

[Red Fel]

Come on. If that is not the laziest or most naive DM in a long while, what is? Such a cool submarine - it would be great for characters, say, levels 5-8. But any DM providing such a thing while the wizard reaches the ability for teleport is asking for it. And even then (lazy DM again), teleport does not get you to unknown places or some that are somewhat protected from teleport and scrying.

That, of course, abstracts from your experience in the same group where the wizard dominated high-level encounters. That happens a lot.

That DM wasn't lazy or naive. He was tired 5/6 of the players sitting around doing nothing but saying "We wait for the Wizard" while a single player got to do an entire scene around teleporting to the Black Tower, teleporting to a random town, razing it with her undead minions, raising new undead minions, then teleporting back to the party and sighing because magic-shopping took so long, then waiting until the next day so that she could prepare her spells.

He tried to give us options. We chose not to take them. I don't fault him for that.

[Ivanhoe]

That DM wasn't lazy or naive. He was tired 5/6 of the players sitting around doing nothing but saying "We wait for the Wizard" while a single player got to do an entire scene around teleporting to the Black Tower, teleporting to a random town, razing it with her undead minions, raising new undead minions, then teleporting back to the party and sighing because magic-shopping took so long, then waiting until the next day so that she could prepare her spells.

He tried to give us options. We chose not to take them. I don't fault him for that.

Well, lazy or naive is maybe a too strong expression. However, if a DM knows a wizard is at some time reaching level 13 and thus quite likely to choose greater teleport, there is not much use to provide the party with a great submarine for transport. And it is not really the players' fault imo (the DM could easily also have told the wizard's player: Please do not choose greater teleport since the submarine is your big plot hook. Or whatever).

I realize you were answering for another poster, but I hope there is more to SiuiS's suggestion. A character who does that will only have 1 spell to blast with, and then only if he's a specialist. At level 1, Shield lasts 1 minute, and Mage Armor lasts 1 hour. A level 1 wizard is who uses this strategy is basically committed to the 15 minute adventuring day or, more accurately, the 1 minute adventuring day.

Well, that would not be as impressive as I first thought. Having 1/day an AC in the fighter's area for some minutes is not that hot, and I do not yet see how the wizard can move around without any danger, and his familiar handling everything at level 1. But thanks for your ideas!

[Togo]

In combat situations, non casters tend to run out of HPs, pretty quickly.
And certainly more faster than casters with their spells.

In a single combat running out of hp is dead. Unless they die every fight, they're not running out, although they may be running low.

Between fights, out of combat healing is cheap and plentiful once you're past the first few levels. Even something as simple as a wand of lesser vigour works out at less than 2gp per hp.

So there isn't really any reason to run out hp between fights. Of course you can, but it's hardly a system limitation. Spells, on the other hand, can only be restored by an 8 hour rest, which in turn only occurs when the DM decides the plot doesn't need you for the next 8 hours.