Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[Endarire]

For all the talk of mundanes being ick, there are still times as a Wizard when I wish I could spam Crusader's Strike while in Martial Spirit stance.

Sometimes, being a non-caster is what's convenient or enjoyable from a personal perspective.

Also, Hood is a very powerful and versatile non-caster concept. She can be, but need not be, a caster or manifester.

[dascarletm]

Sorry if someone said this (I admit I didn't read all 6 pages), but wasn't there a thread just like this a few months ago?

[Rejusu]

Sorry if someone said this (I admit I didn't read all 6 pages), but wasn't there a thread just like this a few months ago?

There is a discussion like this pretty much every month I'd wager. It's an argument that's been going on since the dawn of time. Although it's usually to do with monks.

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.

/Snip

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.

The point is though that although you can have a balanced game, that does not make the system balanced. The fact that situations that casters can't handle are far rarer illustrates that there is a discrepancy in terms of utility. The fact that a DM has to work harder to balance a game to make mundane's feel useful is evidence of this.

Look, no one is arguing that no one should play mundanes (although amongst mundanes there's certainly ones I wouldn't bother with outside of dips, monks for example) but that it's a simple matter of fact that casters are generally more powerful. The thing is you don't have to play the most powerful option open to you unless that's what you want to do. The corollary is that you don't have to refrain from playing less powerful options if that's what you want to do.

Play what you want, but there's not much point pretending that casters don't have it better than everyone else. It's been demonstrated time and time again that they do.

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.

No, it's completely relevant. The argument is that magic items close the power gap, however it ignores that casters also get magic items. It's like saying that 6+4 is equal to 10+4. If items expand the capability of a mundane into full caster territory (which they don't, your WBL isn't that high) then they expand full casters beyond that territory. A wizard can duplicate a fighters entire magical arsenal with just his spell book. Then he gets his own magical arsenal on top of that.

And this is before we consider that a well placed disjunction can dissolve that entire arsenal.

[Kudaku]

For all the talk of mundanes being ick, there are still times as a Wizard when I wish I could spam Crusader's Strike while in Martial Spirit stance.

Sometimes, being a non-caster is what's convenient or enjoyable from a personal perspective.

Also, Hood is a very powerful and versatile non-caster concept. She can be, but need not be, a caster or manifester.

I personally don't consider the ToB classes part of the "mundane" group. Instead I typically think monks, rogues, fighters, cavaliers, gunslingers... Barbarian to a point, though the PF barbarian has some pretty nice tricks.

[Endarire]

If "mundane" equals "bad character," then I'd not want to be a mundane either. I view initiators as mundanes (usually), though at the high end of the desirability spectrum.

(Not accusing you of this, but seemed questionable.)

[Lans]

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

Except for crusaders, they keep going and going. And things with fast healing

[maniacalmojo]

You can make any class powerful. Tier 1 classess are just more powerful and easier to optimize but that is if you do it right. I have played the only mundane in a group of casters and did most of the damage and control stuff. Also a group of 4 wizards in a low level group would die pretty fast. Hit points are a thing and even if you can summon something enemies could still zap you instead.

[Knaight]

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.

It's very much the fault of the rogue class that they break down horribly whenever undead and constructs show up (particularly constructs - some of those things are clearly drawn with gears, belts, and other mechanical equipment and yet, are somehow still immune to sneak attack. That is nonsense), and it's fault design that lets Clerics and Wizards handle locks and traps as well as they do relative to the rogue.

You're basically saying that the DM needs to go out of their way to insure that mundane characters are useful. That's an error in the system, and the capacity to work around it doesn't make it not an issue any more than the capacity to dodge potholes in a road makes it in good condition.

[OldTrees1]

It's very much the fault of the rogue class that they break down horribly whenever undead and constructs show up (particularly constructs - some of those things are clearly drawn with gears, belts, and other mechanical equipment and yet, are somehow still immune to sneak attack. That is nonsense), and it's fault design that lets Clerics and Wizards handle locks and traps as well as they do relative to the rogue.

Sidenote: Dwarven Rogues[Racial Sub from Dragon Mag] get Demolition in addition to Sneak Attack. Demolition includes bonus dice vs Construct/Objects.

[TuggyNE]

Sidenote: Dwarven Rogues[Racial Sub from Dragon Mag] get Demolition in addition to Sneak Attack. Demolition includes bonus dice vs Construct/Objects.

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.

[eggynack]

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.

There are things for those things though. Penetrating strike, lightbringer, greater demolition crystal, greater truedeath crystal, wands of vine strike/golem strike, y'know, things. It does not a caster make, but it's a step in the right direction.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So let's see... a freshly created account, posting a topic known for starting flame wars, who seems extremely familiar with 'forum culture' for someone supposedly new to the forums, such as blue for sarcasm and such, and basically throws the gauntlet out for the masses to get into a frenzy over...

Seems Legit

I wonder if Takahashi'd is going to be the new Godwin'd of caster vs non-caster threads? Then again, I suppose it is a legitimate example of a CW Samurai actually not only being used in a mid-op setting, but actually winning.

Really, though... you can break the game with any class. Caster just do it easier. Even without item abuse, you can still hit arbitrary damage numbers with melee, which works against anything you can reach and is killable by physical damage (which, unless you are FACING a high-op caster, is probably going to be the case).

In all, 3.5 is a very easily broken game. And unfortunately, there's not really a whole lot you can do to stop it. Test of Spite tried. We spent years trying to put in enough house rules to balance things out.

Then we invented Legend, and said our farewells to 3.5.

Give me a class, and I not only can break the game with it, I probably HAVE done so at some point. CW Samurai being my most famous example of this, however I've done Truenamer Gate Shennanigans, I've done Idiot Crusader arbitrary damage loops, I've done Shadowcaster Shadowpouncer for 4+ full attacks per round... you name it, I've likely done it at some point.

After a while... meh. You can break the game with anything. Why bother complaining about casters? Complain about the mechanics that make it possible.

[OldTrees1]

Huh. Which issue, do you know? That seems like a thing that is cool, though it doesn't solve undead, oozes, plants, and elementals.

Dragon 338 pg96 if my source is accurate.
Replaces levels 1, 3 and 5.
Sneak Attack is reduced by 1d6 at the 5th substitution (nothing else is lost for any of the 3 sub levels)
Gain Know(arch & eng) as a class skill

[TuggyNE]

There are things for those things though. Penetrating strike, lightbringer, greater demolition crystal, greater truedeath crystal, wands of vine strike/golem strike, y'know, things. It does not a caster make, but it's a step in the right direction.

Most of those aren't rogue-native (well, UMD sorta half-counts), and none of them solve oozes and elementals, which can't be flanked.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Most of those aren't rogue-native (well, UMD sorta half-counts), and none of them solve oozes and elementals, which can't be flanked.

There's a very easy solution assuming you are willing to deal only half your Sneak Attack.

Also, oozes and elementals are immune to flanking, but there are other ways to get sneak attack to trigger. A bag of marbles does surprisingly well at forcing balance checks that tend to end up making one denied dex bonus to AC by virtue of making a Balance check without five ranks in the skill.

You know, assuming you don't just want to Swift Hunter Dervish all over them.

[TuggyNE]

Also, oozes and elementals are immune to flanking, but there are other ways to get sneak attack to trigger. A bag of marbles does surprisingly well at forcing balance checks that tend to end up making one denied dex bonus to AC by virtue of making a Balance check without five ranks in the skill.

They're immune to flanking, and they're immune to sneak attacks, and there is no specific means of removing their immunity like golemstrike. If they weren't immune to flanking, (Lightbringer) Penetrating Strike would be fine, but since they are, it isn't: it doesn't trigger by making an enemy flat-footed or even denying Dex, only on flanking.

As far as I know, then, it is strictly impossible to sneak attack an ooze or elemental.

[roko10]

SNIP

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

[Togo]

The point is though that although you can have a balanced game, that does not make the system balanced.

If my game is balanced, why would I give a flying )&%! whether the system itself gives achieves some kind of inner harmony?

More to the point, the only way to balance the system is to narrow the range of what it can do to only balanced options. I don't want my system balanced in that way, only the games I play with it. System balance isn't a good thing.

No, it's completely relevant. The argument is that magic items close the power gap, however it ignores that casters also get magic items. It's like saying that 6+4 is equal to 10+4. If items expand the capability of a mundane into full caster territory (which they don't, your WBL isn't that high) then they expand full casters beyond that territory. A wizard can duplicate a fighters entire magical arsenal with just his spell book. Then he gets his own magical arsenal on top of that.

You've missed the point, which is dminishing returns. A fighter gets access to wizard tricks through magic items. A wizard gets access to fighter tricks through magic items. That narrows the gap between them. It doesn't eliminate it, but pretending a non-full caster can't fight incorporeal undead is just silly.

And this is before we consider that a well placed disjunction can dissolve that entire arsenal.

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

[Gwendol]

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

Glad you got the message!

Any non-caster you would fancy trying out in your next game?

[ahenobarbi]

.....or maybe I am just a (former) lurker who was curious why anybody wants to play a mundane.

As it turns out, there are lots of reasons to play them

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

[TuggyNE]

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

No, since a spellbook is not needed or useful in combat and should not even be visible; sundering it also is merely spiteful, since it does not reduce the caster's immediate power in the slightest, in sharp contrast to disjunction's immediate and drastic impact on combat effectiveness.

(Spellbooks can also be protected in various ways, up to and including complete duplicates, which makes the problem potentially much less severe; defenses against disjunction do exist, but are almost exclusively the province of spellcasters.)

[Rejusu]

If my game is balanced, why would I give a flying )&%! whether the system itself gives achieves some kind of inner harmony?

More to the point, the only way to balance the system is to narrow the range of what it can do to only balanced options. I don't want my system balanced in that way, only the games I play with it. System balance isn't a good thing.

Sigh. I'm not saying it's a good thing. The focus on system balance in 4th is why I don't like it. To achieve a better balance it cut options and homogenised classes. But the fact remains that the system isn't balanced, whether you care that it is or not. Casters inherently have more options open to them and a higher power ceiling. In the context of an individual game a mundane may be able to keep up, but it doesn't change the big picture. Again I'm not saying mundanes aren't worth playing, but I'm not going to pretend they have as much potential as a full caster.

You've missed the point, which is dminishing returns. A fighter gets access to wizard tricks through magic items. A wizard gets access to fighter tricks through magic items. That narrows the gap between them. It doesn't eliminate it, but pretending a non-full caster can't fight incorporeal undead is just silly.

I'll accept that a mundane gets better mileage out of their WBL than a full caster does but it still isn't enough to close the gap. And only a poorly optimised wizard would choose to spend money on fighter tricks, most spend it on more of their own tricks. And I'm not pretending that non casters can't fight flying enemies, or incorporeal enemies, or undead. The point was that mundanes have to equip themselves to deal with certain enemies. The wizard on the other hand comes pre equipped to handle pretty much anything. Thus it's a lot more likely that a mundane will run into a situation they're not equipped to deal with than a caster.

Or a fighter can sunder that spellbook. Does that happen often in your games?

Well it's been a long time since I've even played a game with a wizard in the party so no. But whenever this point is raised it seems to ignore the actual rules regarding spellbooks. Firstly a wizard does not need their spellbook to cast spells, only to prepare them. This means that not only is a wizard unlikely to be holding their spellbook in combat they needn't even have it on their person. Even if they are carrying it to even attempt sundering it you'd have to know where he keeps it, which would potentially mean sundering another item to get to it. And while the fighter is fumbling around trying to sunder the wizards bag to get to his book he can still cast spells. Even if you succeed in sundering the book he can still cast spells until he runs out. I'm really not sure where the myth that Wizards become instantly helpless the moment you take their book from them comes from.

They can also make duplicates, and have other means of protecting their spellbook. Or eschewing it altogether. You're also assuming that the fighter can get close enough to even attempt this. And frankly if you're close enough to sunder then grappling is by far a much better way to shut down a wizard. Assuming of course they don't have freedom of movement.

And since when did Wizards become the only full casters in the game? What is the fighter going to sunder when up against a druid? A cleric? A Sorcerer? A Psion?

[Gwendol]

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

Really? "Invalid"? Sheesh, that is a new low.

[ahenobarbi]

Really? "Invalid"? Sheesh, that is a new low.

Well if you read what comes in the post after "invalid:" you'll know why I used that word.

EDIT: If you think I'm wrong you're free to discuss.

[Spore]

Could you recap them for me? I saw only two valid:
* I don't know how to play casters effectively.
* I want to make character building harder for myself.

And a lot of invalid:
* "Character concept" - every single one I saw in this thread can be done (with more crunch power) as a caster.
* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.
* "They run out of spells" - basically "I don't know how to play casters effectively" (unless you care only about very low levels).
...

Your way of telling us your opinion seems arrogant and narrow-minded. Some reasons to play a non-caster:

- You want to rebuild a specific fictional character. Conan, Sindbad or Theseus. And don't TRY and tell me that Conan is a Ragemage or Sindbad could've been a psionic character. that's just shoe-horning in a caster where it isn't needed.

- Your character has the quirk to distrust occult (as in not to be seen) powers. That is actually quite a common trope among fantasy civilisations and NOT reserved only for paranoid dwarves.

- Your character's background didn't allow for any magical training. You are a street rat that couldn't possibly afford to enter the mage's guild, you have never met a druid to mentor you in the art of talking to the elements and you are not pieous enough to be a cleric. Not everyone is special and certainly not every adventurer has hig magical prowess.

- YOU PLAY A ROLEplaying game not a board or card game. Your default option is not to trade units with the enemy to advance as quickly to the board's goal as possible or to buy the Boardwalk in Monopoly. If that role incorporates being a weak street rat that rises to a criminal kingpin, so be it.

[Gwendol]

Character concept: no. If the concept is a fighting man that relies on strength of arm and brawn, being a pencil-necked caster that transforms himself into a wartroll every battle isn't the same concept.

Too much bookkeeping: what do you know of the level of accepted book-keeping of the posters?

They run out of spells: now here you're just being wrong. Vancian casters can run out of spells. The rate at which this happens depends on the level and the game, and not necessarily on the level of system mastery.

[Killer Angel]

Except for crusaders, they keep going and going. And things with fast healing

Fair enough, but exceptions are not the norm.

[ahenobarbi]

- You want to rebuild a specific fictional character. Conan, Sindbad or Theseus. And don't TRY and tell me that Conan is a Ragemage or Sindbad could've been a psionic character. that's just shoe-horning in a caster where it isn't needed.

Have you seen Conan? If he's not a Gish then why he doesn't wear any armor?

Sindbad could have been anything, he doesn't use any abilities Commoner 1 doesn't have (the book version).

I don't remember Theseus's story very clearly but if it's anything like other greek myths you'll have much easier time refluffing spells ("cast invisibility" -> "hid in a situation where it was impossible to", "cast blindness" -> "took a huge stick and removed an eye of a giant before if could react" ) than actually doing this as a mundane.

- Your character has the quirk to distrust occult (as in not to be seen) powers. That is actually quite a common trope among fantasy civilisations and NOT reserved only for paranoid dwarves.

Psion / warlock /... who just doesn't think his powers are "occult". It's just result of his insight into reality. Or training. Or good luck. (...)

- Your character's background didn't allow for any magical training. You are a street rat that couldn't possibly afford to enter the mage's guild, you have never met a druid to mentor you in the art of talking to the elements and you are not pieous enough to be a cleric. Not everyone is special and certainly not every adventurer has hig magical prowess.

Wilder. Or Beguiler. Or Factotum. Or ...

- YOU PLAY A ROLEplaying game not a board or card game. Your default option is not to trade units with the enemy to advance as quickly to the board's goal as possible or to buy the Boardwalk in Monopoly. If that role incorporates being a weak street rat that rises to a criminal kingpin, so be it.

Yes, but for that very reason you'd better build your character to be actually capable of acting the role you want it to. If you build a straight human barbarian when you want to play Conan you may end up very disappointed when a Pixie kites you to death.

[ahenobarbi]

Character concept: no. If the concept is a fighting man that relies on strength of arm and brawn, being a pencil-necked caster that transforms himself into a wartroll every battle isn't the same concept.

And buff-persisting cleric falls short where?

Too much bookkeeping: what do you know of the level of accepted book-keeping of the posters?

Well if you can't keep up with bard book keeping then you probably can't keep up with fighter book keeping too.

They run out of spells: now here you're just being wrong. Vancian casters can run out of spells. The rate at which this happens depends on the level and the game, and not necessarily on the level of system mastery.

There are incantation users too.

[Gwendol]

Have you seen Conan? If he's not a Gish then why he doesn't wear any armor?

If you build a straight human barbarian when you want to play Conan you may end up very disappointed when a Pixie kites you to death.

Have you *read* Conan? Please do, and then tell me how much of Gish he is.