What if the martial/caster divide were optional?

[aramis erak]

I like having the divide. Lacking it is of negative value to me - a direct reduction to my likelihood of running that game.
There are times I think it's too steep in some games... but I'd rather it be too steep than non-extant.

Even when running hero, my Fantasy Hero game world has a flat requirement for unluck if the character has any form of magic. Either 1 level general, or 2 levels restricted to magic use only.

The only genres where I don't mind no line betweeen are supers and the sillier end of the superspies. Note: The 1979 Buck Rogers has a nifty mix of sci-fi, supertech, and the occasional bit of magic, and, for most purposes, is a superspies genre rather than space opera... Jack Pallance as Kaleel the sorcerer... I'll note that the existence of magic in Gerry Anderson's Space Precinct is not a dealbreaker, but it only was a couple episodes. Tho' I'll note that most Space opera DOES have magic - just usually calling it Psionics. Trek TOS used "ESP" rather than psionics in the second pilot, but both pilots involved psi.

 

[RobinRolls20]

Would you still create a character with no magic/only magic?
I have tried, but I always go back to playing pretty much just a spellcaster.

Would you learn a specialist spell for your specialist, e.g. a thief that can unlock with magic?
That's exactly where it gets fun, isn't it? You can take general magic skills and then specifiy them to make your characters different from one another. Even those that fulfill the same role. A rogue could use mind magic to gain access or maybe force magic (like telekinesis). But two rogues with mind magic might still do things differently, for example through a distracting illusion or through charming the guards.

Would you go full Gandalf (give your wizard a one-handed sword)?
Always have a backup weapon, never learn magic alone. Daggers are particularly useful, for they can be hidden easily, used in melee and be thrown. There is always that one encounter where your magic gets blocked. So that's mandatory. But personally, I always find myself using bows/guns to deal damage and the magic of my characters to heal and support my allies. That way, I don't have to deal with any rolls to resist my spells and never waste any resources (quintessence, actions, etc.).

Is the martial/caster divide still a problem, if being a martial or a caster is purely voluntary?
I think it equals out the playing fields. In my group, the martials are at least as powerful as the casters, maybe even more so. The casters are very useful in many situations. But the martials are always the ones who do most of the work, at the end of the day. Reliable brute force seems to go a long way.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I'd say "It depends."

Many systems have magic items that let non-casters do magic things, and often effectively require the non-caster types to have them.

A system with formal martial and caster classes can allow cross-training with a greater or lesser premium charged.

A "classless" system can charge a large up-front cost for being a caster. E.g. the Magery advantage in GURPS. This creates a caster/non-caster pseudo-class split.

The "sweet spot(s)" along the pure-caster to pure-non-caster continuum depend on the game mechanics and the way the GM runs the campaign.

IMHO, making it easier for martial types to become skill-monkeys helps with the problem of caster vs martial balance - but then I have a fondness for skill-monkeys.

 

[GrahamWills]

You're playing an RPG that provides a la carte character options:

• any PC can learn magic.
• any PC can use weapons or armor.
• spell and weapon damages generally cap at the same level.
• there is a decent selection of non-damaging spells, some of which create effects that make specialists feel silly (like charm, unlock, invisibility...)

Would you still create a character with no magic/only magic?

Yes. I go for a concept first and adapt it to the system. Sometimes pure magic users, sometimes no-magic. If you can mix that simply opens up some new paths to play. So when D&D 4E came out I played a fighter/wizard because it was the first time in D&D I could play that concept without being forced into a specialized themed class. But I also played a pure fighter and a pure magic-user.

Would you learn a specialist spell for your specialist, e.g. a thief that can unlock with magic?

Absolutely. When I ran Rolemaster this was very normally. I had a player who added the suggestion list to his hobbit character so they could get free food and drinks more easily (as well as distract people). When I played a leader type in Start Wars Saga I dipped force adapt to get an edge on my persuasion abilities ...

Would you go full Gandalf (give your wizard a one-handed sword)?

Absolutely. I had a 4E Fighter/Wizard (multi, not hybrid) who would often start a fight with a fireball (marking all the targets hit) and then wade in with Come and Get It and doing the main damage with sword work.

Is the martial/caster divide still a problem, if being a martial or a caster is purely voluntary?

I don't really play systems where it causes a problem, honestly. It's really only non-4E D&D that I've found it an issue; most other systems seem to balance it well. So I just gave up on 3E and PF1 and that was that.

 

[GMMichael]

Always have a backup weapon, never learn magic alone. Daggers are particularly useful, for they can be hidden easily, used in melee and be thrown. There is always that one encounter where your magic gets blocked. So that's mandatory.

This cannot be overstated. Unless you have a bodyguard.

The "sweet spot(s)" along the pure-caster to pure-non-caster continuum depend on the game mechanics and the way the GM runs the campaign.

GMs are a big factor here, unfortunately. Unguarded obstacles make it pretty safe for the wizard to step forward and say, "I have the spell for that trap." Or short-run challenges, like a sprint versus a marathon, allow a short-duration spell to make the ranger's lifelong physical conditioning look like a waste of time.

Throw in a mechanism like spell disruption or even spell quality rolls, and the wizard isn't guaranteed to make the ranger look bad. Or if the ranger can use a Search skill to detect demon-spiders BEFORE casting dimension door on the hellbrambles, then the wizard without Search could be the character who looks bad...