Why would somebody play an non-caster?

[Gwendol]

And buff-persisting cleric falls short where?



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



There are incantation users too.

Clerics largely still rely on pre-buffing, persistent spell or not. Plus it carries its own character concepts (champion of a god, or ideal if that's allowed).

It has nothing to do with keeping up. Some people don't want to carry a binder around, just a sheet of paper.

And you can have a reserve feat fiery blaster wizard, or a warlock, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. Spells are a daily finite resource, period.

[Killer Angel]

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

Leaving aside that Conan doesn't cast any spell, in the book he wears armors. A lot.
And even in the movie, I would say.

[Rejusu]

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.

It makes character building more interesting, it only makes it harder if you're trying to be as powerful as you possibly can. In which case it's your reasoning that's invalid. What valid reason is there to always make the most powerful character you can within the confines of the system? If that's your argument then why not just play Pun-Pun every game?

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.

Show me how you'd implement the concept of a character that doesn't use magic (or psionics) as a caster and I'll eat my hat.

* "Too much book keeping" - spontaneous casters don't have that problem.

...

I believe that when most people refer to bookkeeping they're talking about having to manage their spells known, not their prepared spells. Spontaneous casters have this issue too. A tenth level Sorcerer without any tricks has twenty four different spells he can cast at any time, and it only goes up from there. At least prepared casters only need keep the descriptions for the spells they have prepared to hand. Last time I played a spontaneous caster though I kept a set of reference sheets with my spells on them. Tell me that spontaneous casters have no bookkeeping requirements again?

[Killer Angel]

I believe that when most people refer to bookkeeping they're talking about having to manage their spells known, not their prepared spells. Spontaneous casters have this issue too. A tenth level Sorcerer without any tricks has twenty four different spells he can cast at any time, and it only goes up from there. At least prepared casters only need keep the descriptions for the spells they have prepared to hand. Last time I played a spontaneous caster though I kept a set of reference sheets with my spells on them. Tell me that spontaneous casters have no bookkeeping requirements again?

It's more that wizards and their like, must choose every day what spells they want to be prepared. That is the potential headache, because not all the players like to spend time to think about it.
A spontaneous caster, is almost the magical version of a meleer: you have what you got, no need to worry too much.

[Togo]

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.

Sure, but since I've already said it's not balanced, and don't want it to be balanced, how is this point in any way relevant?

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.

Sure, but since the phrase I used was 'narrow the gap', how is this point in any way relevant?

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.

In other words, you're having a long argument with someone that you largely agree with?

The wizard on the other hand comes pre equipped to handle pretty much anything.

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

Worse still, you can look at the sorcerer, who gets a fairly limited range of spells, but can expand that range by spending money on... equipment (wands, potions, runestaffs, etc.) See also beguiler, healer, dread necromancer and other more limited casters.

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 ....

Something that wasn't relevant to the original point being made. I'm starting to see why these discussions drag on. People have a stock of set talking points and bring them up when triggered by key words, rather than trying to follow the point being made by the other person.

I don't want to give you a hard time, because you're being quite reasonable, but I'd like to break the pattern here.

Let's lay it out:

-I have a game. Not an abstract system comparison, an actual game
-In that game, the highest level of optimisation permitted is a level of effectiveness that both casters and non-casters can reach
-It's already established that needing to balance the game is both necessary and desirable

So what exactly is the problem?

[Killer Angel]

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

Nope, those 4 spells are a class feature, exactly as the spells for a cleric, or a druid.

[OldTrees1]

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).
...

Character Concept:
Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth despite his magical inability.

Too much bookkeeping:
Different people consider different things as bookkeeping. I once had a caster that was unwilling to remember the effects of their spells. I could easily see someone that did not want to play a caster because they did not want to have to remember spell details.

Limited abilities:
You probably dismissed this as "They run out of spells". Strangely these are unrelated. Some people just flat out dislike anything listed in # of uses/time period. (I have a minor dislike of that mechanic myself and I have had players that disliked it even more) This is a matter of personal tastes for mechanics. Similar to the difference in personal tastes for mechanics between 3e and 4e players.

[Spore]

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.

If that is your reason to not play a barbarian you are a strange STRANGE little man.

"I won't play character x because it looses in hypothetical scenario #1245!" If you are dumb enough to follow a pixie that wants to kill you I have bad news for you.

Also I am done trying to argue with you. Take that as you want (you will probably count this as victory) but I've learned that you can't argue with some people. While you're right that many concepts are possible with spellcasters, you apparently do not accept any opinions other than your own so I will refuse to discuss with you furthermore.

And you guys should do the same. This thread is circular. We provide concept xy, he shoe-horns in a way how this could be done with a caster.

Maybe Conan's prayer to Crom was actually a Miracle spell and Conan is Cleric 18 and the subsequent films are but the realisation of said spell.

[ahenobarbi]

Leaving aside that Conan doesn't cast any spell, in the book he wears armors. A lot.
And even in the movie, I would say.

That's obviously because anticipating a battle with large group of enemies he used long-duration buffs beforehand and donned armor for additional protection.

(Also gishes can wear aromor if they want to. O of they're based on one of many casters who can cast in armor.)

And really "can alone (well... with his Bard cohort) slay entire armies (in melee)" sounds like a feat of a gish not a "mundane" fighter.

It makes character building more interesting, it only makes it harder if you're trying to be as powerful as you possibly can. In which case it's your reasoning that's invalid. What valid reason is there to always make the most powerful character you can within the confines of the system? If that's your argument then why not just play Pun-Pun every game?

I find it much easier to implement any concept if I allow use of magic in the build. Power isn't much of concern here - it's pretty easy to build weak magic users if you want to.

Show me how you'd implement the concept of a character that doesn't use magic (or psionics) as a caster and I'll eat my hat.

I don't think that's a character concept.

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

Nah, I don't think you'll be interested in the discussion after I'll read it.

Clerics largely still rely on pre-buffing, persistent spell or not. Plus it carries its own character concepts (champion of a god, or ideal if that's allowed).

So...? It does everything you asked for. You might base it of Ranger (Urban and Mystic variants may be useful), Ur-Priest (so you won't have to worship anything), ...

It has nothing to do with keeping up. Some people don't want to carry a binder around, just a sheet of paper.

Too much bookkeeping:
Different people consider different things as bookkeeping. I once had a caster that was unwilling to remember the effects of their spells. I could easily see someone that did not want to play a caster because they did not want to have to remember spell details.

PLay Dragonfireadept. Select invocations with 24h duration. Enjoy.

And you can have a reserve feat fiery blaster wizard, or a warlock, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. Spells are a daily finite resource, period.

Yes, but magic users aren't limited to using spells and that was my point. Period.

Character Concept:
Disappointing son of an archmage. The son sets out to prove his worth despite his magical inability.

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

You probably dismissed this as "They run out of spells". Strangely these are unrelated. Some people just flat out dislike anything listed in # of uses/time period. (I have a minor dislike of that mechanic myself and I have had players that disliked it even more) This is a matter of personal tastes for mechanics. Similar to the difference in personal tastes for mechanics between 3e and 4e players.

Then you'd better not play a mundane because you will need items with limited uses. How about invocation user? With right invocations you'll have your bases covered and be able to spend gold on items with unlimited usage.

[Rejusu]

Sure, but since I've already said it's not balanced, and don't want it to be balanced, how is this point in any way relevant?

It's relevant because you misinterpreted my argument that the system is not balanced as one in support of system balance. It's relevant because it corrects that mistaken interpretation.

Sure, but since the phrase I used was 'narrow the gap', how is this point in any way relevant?

It's relevant because you're arguing that the gap is much smaller than it actually is.

In other words, you're having a long argument with someone that you largely agree with?

Not precisely. The point of contention is that your arguments suggest casters don't enjoy as big an advantage as they do over mundanes. And that it can be largely mitigated with judicious use of magic items. This is where we disagree.

Well, no, he doesn't. He comes with 4 spells a level. He find or purchases the rest. Just like equipment.

As already pointed out spells are a class feature for a wizard. He doesn't have to go to magic mart to get a lot of his tricks. A lot of his staple spells can deal with encounters that a mundane would have to equip themselves to handle. Either through specific feats or items. While a rogue has to take a feat just to make one of her primary class features work against undead a caster can take a feat to make their primary class feature work better against everything.

Something that wasn't relevant to the original point being made. I'm starting to see why these discussions drag on. People have a stock of set talking points and bring them up when triggered by key words, rather than trying to follow the point being made by the other person.

Okay now it's really starting to get tiresome that you're calling my points irrelevant. If this line of argument is supposedly "irrelevant" then why did YOU bring it up, multiple times I might add. The point you were making by bringing up the Wizards spellbook is that casters, like mundanes, have their own weaknesses. If this is not the point you were making then I have no idea what you were trying to argue by bringing it up.

I followed the point being made by providing the counter argument that a Wizards spellbook is not a huge weakness. Certainly not comparable to being unable to effectively fight certain enemies. A melee fighter needs flight if he wants to be effective against flying enemies. A wizard need only stuff his spellbook down his pants if he doesn't want a passing fighter to sunder it. Furthermore it's a weakness unique to the Wizard alone, other casters don't possess it.

Honestly this just comes across as an attempt to dismiss the argument outright rather than concede the point. It's not cool.

So what exactly is the problem?

The problem is you're trying apply the context of your game to the big picture.

[ahenobarbi]

If that is your reason to not play a barbarian you are a strange STRANGE little man.

If you can't recognize an example...

If you are dumb enough to follow a pixie that wants to kill you I have bad news for you.

With it's speed and hide it will have no problem kiting a barbarian (and debuff arrows).

Also I am done trying to argue with you. Take that as you want (you will probably count this as victory) but I've learned that you can't argue with some people. While you're right that many concepts are possible with spellcasters, you apparently do not accept any opinions other than your own so I will refuse to discuss with you furthermore.

I'm doing my best to demonstrate my point.

And you guys should do the same. This thread is circular. We provide concept xy, he shoe-horns in a way how this could be done with a caster.

My point is that you can implement virtually any character concept with a magic user. I think so because I did try to implement many of them and they were all easier to do with using magic.

So I don't have abstract proof that you can. I only have experience that strongly implies it. So all I can do to convince you is to show examples to you.

Maybe Conan's prayer to Crom was actually a Miracle spell and Conan is Cleric 18 and the subsequent films are but the realisation of said spell.

=_=

[Gwendol]

That's obviously because anticipating a battle with large group of enemies he used long-duration buffs beforehand and donned armor for additional protection.

(Also gishes can wear aromor if they want to. O of they're based on one of many casters who can cast in armor.)

And really "can alone (well... with his Bard cohort) slay entire armies (in melee)" sounds like a feat of a gish not a "mundane" fighter.

Your Conan-related points are utterly pointless. You speak of a concept you quite clearly have no understanding of. It's an embarassment.

As for your other points, it's your preference to use magic in one way or another when building characters and I respect that. To state that not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid" as a reason for playing a non-caster is a very strange argument.

[Osiris]

There are about 2500 wizard spells.

Good. Luck. With. That.

Seriously, in the one game I'm playing a pure caster in I've spent more time researching and choosing spells after games than I have playing them.

Casters are amazing. If you know your options, but if you can detail even 10% of your options off the top of your head you are a freaking savant. I can't even remember my own character's spell list off the top of my head, and I freaking picked it.

Yup, it's very hard to play a caster. It's taking weeks to build my current one. Either way, sometimes you just want to play a rogue or barbarian. You don't always want to be an instant win button. You just want to "eat a hamburger" or whatever it was.

[ahenobarbi]

Your Conan-related points are utterly pointless. You speak of a concept you quite clearly have no understanding of. It's an embarassment.

Obviously I do have some knowledge and all I wrote fits it pretty well.
Also obviously I'm not going to build Conan for you if I ever watched half an episode of it. If you did bother to give some actual description of "Conan concept" you have I could.

As for your other points, it's your preference to use magic in one way or another when building characters and I respect that. To state that not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid" as a reason for playing a non-caster is a very strange argument.

And I never stated that 'not wanting to use magic when building a character is "invalid"'. In fact I did give two reasons one might want to.

And I wrote that other reasons are invalid (which might have been a wrong choice of word... would "boil down to the two above" be better?).

[ahenobarbi]

Yup, it's very hard to play a caster. It's taking weeks to build my current one. Either way, sometimes you just want to play a rogue or barbarian. You don't always want to be an instant win button. You just want to "eat a hamburger" or whatever it was.

Actually it's pretty easy. Just pick a fixed-list caster and don't PrC. Or Bard if you want fewer spells. Or invocation-user if you want even fewer.

And as a magic user you're not forced to have win-buttons. You're free to play at lower power level if you want to.

[Gwendol]

Obviously I do have some knowledge and all I wrote fits it pretty well.
Also obviously I'm not going to build Conan for you if I ever watched half an episode of it. If you did bother to give some actual description of "Conan concept" you have I could.

As always, google has the answer:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230780

[Wargamer]

One of my gaming group always figured that from 3.0 onwards the "Wizard problem" was down to WotC never making it clear that magic is not meant to be easily obtained.

Think on this: there is enough variation in the core rules to make almost any kind of Wizard, from Gandalf to Harry Potter to Ridcully. The 3.0 attitude is that you can take the D&D core rules and make your own world, hence why there is so much flexibility and potential interpretation within classes.

The problem is (by his theory) that Wizards are meant to have a very narrow spell book. The DM should know what spells the player could potentially have and plan accordingly, designing the campaign in such a way that new spells are handed out like magic items are to other players.

But what actually happens is casters just have free reign to grab every spell and utterly swamp a campaign with wild arcana.

Magic is, to me, the most boring part of D&D, and I think this freedom of magic only hurts the game. Gandalf was not an awesome character because he cast Cloudkill over entire armies; his magic was supplementary, used in subtle ways that often hinted, but never showed greater power could be at his command.

How many D&D wizards act like Gandalf? Maybe at Level 1 or 2, but Gandalf is meant to be level 12-14 at least in D&D terms. What Level 12 wizard doesn't hurl spells at every obstacle without thinking?

So, ultimately, this is why I don't play casters; they ruin the game by their existence.

[ahenobarbi]

One of my gaming group always figured that from 3.0 onwards the "Wizard problem" was down to WotC never making it clear that magic is not meant to be easily obtained.

However rules make it extremly easy to obtain.

The problem is (by his theory) that Wizards are meant to have a very narrow spell book.

However rules give wizard a lot of spells (even without buying any). And clerics get all of them.

Magic is, to me, the most boring part of D&D, and I think this freedom of magic only hurts the game. Gandalf was not an awesome character because he cast Cloudkill over entire armies; his magic was supplementary, used in subtle ways that often hinted, but never showed greater power could be at his command.

Did you try other magic subsystems? Invocation users are much easier to play (and to handle).

How many D&D wizards act like Gandalf? Maybe at Level 1 or 2, but Gandalf is meant to be level 12-14 at least in D&D terms. What Level 12 wizard doesn't hurl spells at every obstacle without thinking?

For example my previous wizard often did cast one spell per battle then just stayed around making sure everything works out as planned. Heck once all he did was to tell others to use blunt weapons and watch them kill some slime.

So, ultimately, this is why I don't play casters; they ruin the game by their existence.

I disagree. You can play a caster and not ruin a game. You just need to build and play on proper power level (nothing forces casters to one-shot dragons with Shivering touch...).

[OldTrees1]

Play Dragonfireadept. Select invocations with 24h duration. Enjoy.

Indeed that is one of the options for people that do not like Bookkeeping. However it is far from the only option. Warlock and the mundane classes are also options that someone that dislikes Bookkeeping would enjoy.

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

Yeah, magical inability and spellcasting (and Wildshape) do not mix. That sounded like a deliberate misunderstanding. The point of the character is one without magical ability that tries to prove their worth despite their magical inability.

Then you'd better not play a mundane because you will need items with limited uses. How about invocation user? With right invocations you'll have your bases covered and be able to spend gold on items with unlimited usage.

Which items would those be? Flight? Mundanes can have Ex Flight with unlimited uses. People that dislike unlimited uses will choose between Invocation classes and mundane classes since neither obsoletes the other.

[Rejusu]

Since Gandalf (and the other wizards as well as Sauron) are all immortal god spirits he's probably a bit more than a level 12 wizard. Maybe he only has that many class levels but I bet he has a huge level adjustment.

[Togo]

It's relevant because you misinterpreted my argument that the system is not balanced as one in support of system balance. It's relevant because it corrects that mistaken interpretation.

I'm happy to confirm I fully understand that you don't support system balance, and agree with the reasons you gave for doing so.

It's relevant because you're arguing that the gap is much smaller than it actually is..

Pretty sure I've not mentioned anything about the size of said gap, except to say that equipment makes it narrower than it would be without equipment.

Not precisely. The point of contention is that your arguments suggest casters don't enjoy as big an advantage as they do over mundanes. And that it can be largely mitigated with judicious use of magic items. This is where we disagree.

Do we? Full casters are very much more powerful than non casters. I've argued that they don't run out of hp at the drop of hat, and that any difficulty they face in effectively fighting a wide range of opponents is largely covered by their equipment, just as casters cover it through a variety of spells.

Okay now it's really starting to get tiresome that you're calling my points irrelevant. If this line of argument is supposedly "irrelevant" then why did YOU bring it up, multiple times I might add. The point you were making by bringing up the Wizards spellbook is that casters, like mundanes, have their own weaknesses. If this is not the point you were making then I have no idea what you were trying to argue by bringing it up.

So I noticed. The point I was making was that DMs tend to avoid exploiting weaknesses that cripple a character entirely. Disjunction, a point you brought up, tends not to get cast repeatedly on PCs simply because retooling and replacing a high level character's equipment is a pain. Similarly, despite there being any number of solid plot reasons why a wizard would be separated from his spellbook, the need for which is a weakness specifically laid out in the rulebook, it doesn't tend to happen because it's not very fun for the wizard. (spiteful, another character called it).

Certainly not comparable to being unable to effectively fight certain enemies. A melee fighter needs flight if he wants to be effective against flying enemies.

I don't understand what class can't use a bow. Even with flight, chasing after a fast-moving opponent is rarely the best option.

The problem is you're trying apply the context of your game to the big picture.

No, I'm trying to understand what this 'big picture' is and how it effects an individual game. We've got as far as the system shouldn't be balanced, and that it is desirable to iron out balance issues on the level of an individual game. So what remains in the 'big picture' if it doesn't effect an individual game? Is it just an intellectual abstraction?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

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.

There's a feat that lets you deal one half sneak attack even when the target is immune to sneak attack.

Elementals and oozes are not immune to being denied dex bonus to AC. Which is also a trigger for sneak attack.

Swift Hunter can allow you to apply precision-based damage to any favored enemy, and that can include oozes and elementals, and of course Scout has a different triggering method that does not involve flanking.

[kirerellim]

For my players, not everyone has the understanding, or wants to use the cleverness required to play a mage, especially as our games tend to only last to level 5 or 10. While there are some pretty bad ass level 5 spells and below spells, they prefer getting a large part of their abilities, like smacking things with sticks, early on lol.

While I myself love mages, and obsess over dnd books, finding /all/ the spells, most of my players are not obsessive or big readers. They do not want to look up every spell they have to see what it is and how much it can do. They only advise me what they want to be able to do and I build their characters for them. They like being able to look at their three page character sheet and know exactly what they are able to do, rather than a three page character sheet and a 10 page spell list of cleric level 5 ><.

In terms of power, there is no argument. A magi of almost any type in mid game will beat a pure martial class often. Then again, it depends on the magi and who see's who first.

[Togo]

Urban Wildshape Ranger. You start with no magical ability and actually do prove worthy (but using a different power source than your pops).

Since when has a wildshape ranger been a caster? They have, what, one spell a day if that?

[TuggyNE]

There's a feat that lets you deal one half sneak attack even when the target is immune to sneak attack.

Which feat is this? (Lightbringer) Penetrating Strike is an ACF that allows half sneak attack against immune targets when flanking. And only when flanking. Which elementals and oozes are also immune to.

Swift Hunter can allow you to apply precision-based damage to any favored enemy, and that can include oozes and elementals, and of course Scout has a different triggering method that does not involve flanking.

Swift Hunter, from what I can tell, allows skirmish damage, not just any old precision damage. Sneak attack is not skirmish.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Swift Hunter, from what I can tell, allows skirmish damage, not just any old precision damage. Sneak attack is not skirmish.

Swift Hunter applies to ALL precision-based damage, not just skirmish. It explicitly calls out precision-based damage, and explicitly includes Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike as examples.

And Swift Hunter is very easy to qualify for.

Besides, even if you only do Skirmish, you can still get some very nasty damage numbers by going with Scout and Ranger stacking for Skirmish damage then throwing in some Dervish and dual-wielding to be able to make a full attack (or more!) while moving around to activate skirmish.

No flanking necessary!

[TuggyNE]

Swift Hunter applies to ALL precision-based damage, not just skirmish. It explicitly calls out precision-based damage, and explicitly includes Sneak Attack and Sudden Strike as examples.

Ah, OK. That's the problem I was running into.

[Isamu Dyson]

The Record of Lodoss (anime inspired by D&D) Party seems to get along fine. This is despite the fact that the party composition is split down the middle in terms of melee and magic.

To the uninitiated, there's Parn (Fighter), Ghim (Fighter), Woodchuck (Rogue), Slayn (Wizard), Etoh (Cleric) and Deedlit (Wizard? Wizard/Fighter?).

Are there any other fictional parties based on/inspired by D&D that do fine with a similar mix of archetypes?

[Gotterdammerung]

My personal answer would be a "too many eggs in one basket approach."

I feel that a party of mixed capabilities ends up stronger in the long run. I find that in a group composed entirely of casters there is less synergy. This is NOT to say that it has to be that way. Of course I could build a perfect caster group with perfect synergy. But in actual game play with real other people it just never happens. Caster builds tend to get a little selfish with their concepts and powers. I find that when a group has half casters and half muggle builds the casters synergize with the muggles without even trying. It also covers a party weakness when magic gets shut down. I think of it like a good crew from One Piece. YES it would be strong to have an entire crew of devil fruit eaters! But then who is gonna save Luffy when he falls in the water?

[roko10]

But then who is gonna save Luffy when he falls in the water?

Someone with a rope.